PvP and MMORPGs: is it timidity?

Are Player-versus-Player (PvP) MMORPGS more fun, do they make better business sense?   Recent TN discussions circle:  "Griefing (too much of a good thing?)", "NPCs (if they weren't so busy as rubbish...)", and even (obliquely): "Addiction (is avatar suicide brinksmanship just a perverse variant?)."  Discussion from earlier this year on Gamemethod frames the two schools of thought (pro and con) as follows.

PvP+    Player conflict is necessary to make the game world challenging and adds an integral human influence...Monster AI isn't good enough...Real sense of excitement.
PvP-    Power gamers ruin the fun and immersion... (Griefers)

Admittedly Gamemethod likes PvP (disclosure: I do too),  nonetheless, they make a provocative claim. Namely that most MMORPGs cater to PvP- crowd because they are risk adverse and because it is harder to get right.   In so doing they neglect a largely untapped resevoir of folk who really itch for it.

So I ask.  Are there legions of folk out there in the wings ready to become MMORPG players, if only someone could get the PvP secret sauce right?

Comments

[Doccus]

1.

Our guild does PvP games, exclusively. When we tire of one (often after a year or more, or in one case several years), we look for "the next big PvP game".

Two-faction RvR is a pain to get balanced. If one side vastly overwhelms the other, there is no recourse. More factions means more opportunities to make and break alliances.

Voluntary PvP, IMHO, doesn't do it for me at all. If I'm out hunting, I *WANT* to have to look over my shoulder all the time to avoid getting killed.

I'm firmly PvP+, and play exclusively on the unlimited PvP servers (in the games that have them).

D

[Richard Bartle]

2.

The problem that developers have in this area is that players aren't necessarily against PvP in principle, they're just against PvThemPersonally.

Virtual worlds without competition can exist (eg. educational worlds), but they're few and far between. Even if the virtual world itself doesn't implement competition, the players will contrive to introduce it (designer clothes in SL are completely unnecessary, but their sales are driven by one-upmanship).

PvP makes competition explicit. Although people will often accept implicit competition (eg. I can't kill the monster because you got there first), with PvP it's out in the open and they have to think about it. Some people think "I can do this to other players? Cool!"; some think "I can have this done to me by other players? Uncool!"; some think "Players can do this to each other? Cool/uncool" (depending on the design).

I believe that game-like virtual worlds are better for PvP, but that assumes that the players go along with it. If their short-term view is that it's a bad thing, then they won't play - irrespectve of whether or not in the long term it's a good thing. Also, the way that PvP is implemented can have an effect: some implementations work and some don't. Just because a virtual world has PvP, that doesn't mean it's necessarily designed right.

Richard

[Luca Girardo]

3.

What about a consensual PvP based not only on the Realm or Faction systems (or a mixture too) but also on a geographical system where certain areas are no longer “guarded or patrolled” and other (like the new players areas, towns) are safe harbors? The problem is to balance the risk of adventuring in the unsafe areas with good rewards in term of hunting camps, dungeons, resource harvesting. And still it would be a consensual PvP as it would be possible only in specific areas.

[Tobold]

4.

PvP only works well when the avatars fighting each other are of roughly equal power, and it is the skill of the player determining the outcome. This is a given in most popular online shooters, from Doom to Socom.

MMORPG are built around the concept of player avatars becoming more powerful with time, there is "character development". But that automatically means that a level 10 warrior played by any newbie will win a combat against the level 1 warrior played by the worlds greatest PvP expert. And even if two players have the same level, the quality of their equipment can still vary widely, and make PvP rather uneven.

So PvP in MMORPG is nearly always between an attacker and a victim, and very rarely some sort of duel. And all the positive things you can say about PvP (better intelligence, more challenge, etc.) only apply to this tiny part of what is actually happening. PvP and MMORPG simply don't mix well.

[Tessa Lowe]

5.

The only place I've ever seen PvP work to my personal satisfaction was in Matt Mihaly's 'Achaea'. The key in that game is that PvP is complex and 90% dependent on player skill, not level - In Achaea it wouldn't be at all unusual for a level 20 expert PvPer to quickly overcome level 50+ socialisers who havent spent time practicing their PvP skills.

This may appear to spell the death-knell for non-PvPers in such a game, but the opposite is true in Achaea. This is because non-PvPers can find refuge in cities and within the bosom of their guilds and clans, which always have fighters willing to deal out righteous vengeance. On top of this, what better backdrop to socialise against than shared danger?

I haven't been to Achaea for a couple of years now, but I see no reason to imagine that Mihaly would have changed such a virtuously balanced system. This then is the paradigm shift I'd like to see in large graphical MMORPGs - the primacy of player skill over duration of servitude. Clearly this wont appeal to everyone, but at the moment the market for MMORPGs based on player skill is considerably underserved.

MMORPGs need to watch the text MUDs more. So many good ideas going to waste.

[Alan Stern]

6.

I pretty much agree with everything Tobold says above. My PvP experience is very limited (only DAOC, before ToA) but what I saw there did not entice me. In order to be viable in PvP, one had to be at least level 45, preferably 50 (the highest level in the game at the time). THEN, you had to have the best items. (Which I eventually got.) THEN, you got to PvP with impunity.. except I didn't find it to be much fun at all. It was constantly a game of numbers. Whoever had more, won. Period. It got to the point where a huge guild in one of the enemy realms left our server to start anew on another server because there just wasn't any good competition for them. Mythic kept adding things to the PvP play, new abilities and such, but that merely shifted the dynamic. It didn't "fix" the underlying problem I had with the game - it just wasn't fun to me.

Mythic did do one thing to even it out a bit. The level-limited battlegrounds rocked. They were more fun, mostly because you were playing against evenly-matched people. However, after time, it still evened out to a numbers determination. More players = victory. Q.E.D. The lone wolf rarely accomplished much (excepting perhaps the stealth classes).

So nowadays I throw my hat in the non-PvP crowd. Because of the level and item treadmills, any PvP in an MMORPG becomes a game amongst the elite and wishful thinking to the lower classes.

[MM]

7.

Must agree with Tessa. Many of the text games have had this right for years.

Another problem with pvp is the acceptability of murder on the part of the GMs. You have people running around killing whoever they can and then people wonder why the victims complain about it.

Players should be able to attack other players when the situation warrants it. But players can't be allowed to go on killing sprees. If the game devs keep on that path they are never going to find what they are looking for. We need look no further than real life to find a working model for pvp. Anarchy is not the answer.

[Dan]

8.

I agree with Tobold, as well. I play SWG, and focus my time and energy on crafting items and playing the market. I enjoy developing my character towards non-destructive ends, and my biggest satisfactions in the game are helping new players and making new friends.

If SWG were open PvP, I wouldn't play. I simply am not interested in having to worry that someone I don't even know can kill me with no repurcussions, simply because I didn't spend three months clicking on monsters and newbies in order to be able to defend myself. I far prefer spending three months clicking on inventory items in order to make cooler stuff.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of people in SWG participate in the open declared faction system, and whether or not those players keep more "peaceful" characters on other servers.

[weasel]

9.

I agree with the 'imbalance ruins PvP' sentiment. Only when player competition is roughly balanced is it worth having. Only when the competition is fair, will a persistent world have any hope of opening up any untapped market that may exist.

Alan Stern> More players = victory.

This is an important, and underappreciated problem of PvP balance. Putting the outcome of PvP interaction on player skill only provides a certain amount of balance. It may indeed be necessary to balance the quantity of participants as well, to draw in the 'casual' PvP market.

After all, the most popular competitive games we look to as justification for the concept, all have meticulously balanced quantities of participants.

Then one must also consider the balancing of player skill. Some players will simply be vastly better than others, they're the professionals (be they NFL, FIFA, or PGL). Healthy competition very nearly requires giving them a seperate tier to operate upon.

What you end up with after all this, looks more like a fantasy sports league (pun intended) than a traditional persistent world. In the grand scheme of unproven world designs, this is right up there with all the other intriguing designs that corporate money just won't be backing.

Not to say it cann't work - but just to say that it won't come from SOE, EA, or MS.
Maybe NCSoft's buckshot approach to persistent world publishing might find it.

Persistent world gaming, overall, needs to break out of our traditions to have any hope of attracting and retaining new players. The PvP debate is simply a manifestation of just how constrained our gamespace has become, as we've designed ourselves into a corner to sate the status quo.

[magicback]

10.

Thus,

Many dev thinks implementing consentual PvP is the best way to go. I'm in this camp.

Eve Online have done it nicely with their security zones. WoW and DAoC have their "frontiers". Other games are similar.

So, I don't think there are legions of folks looking for a MMORPG with the PvP secret sauce. I am among many still looking for the secret sauce to solid long-term and fun gameplay.

Frank

[DuckiLama]

11.

"In order to be viable in PvP, one had to be at least level 45, preferably 50 (the highest level in the game at the time). THEN, you had to have the best items. (Which I eventually got.) THEN, you got to PvP with impunity.. except I didn't find it to be much fun at all. It was constantly a game of numbers."

Sounds like you fell victim to the meme. What you describe is not at all true...
Depending on your definition of "viable".

To me, "viable" meant "can I have fun, lay down a bit of smack and not be one-shotted?"
Starting at level 20, the answer was definitely "yes". Hell, my wife took her Minstrel at whatever the lowest level is you are allowed to, and had fun. I took Minstrels, Clerics, Sorcerors, etc starting usually at 15 or 20.

And had a blast. I started RvRing more often than PvEing starting at about level 30 with my cleric for the simple fact that it was fun.

Was I uber? Not even close.
Could I single-handedly turn the tide of battle? Only very, very, very rarely.
Was I able to influence battles? Absolutely.

Perhaps that was because I really liked my cleric - even _after_ the big nerf - and was (not to be conceited) really really good at being a cleric, both pre and post nerf.

Sorry if this is too tangential, but that quote was one of the things that bugged the bejebus out of me, because people - the _players_ - created a grind where none existed by buying into the "you have to be level X to RvR" and didn't even bother to try it out. Me? I never did get to level 50, or even 45. I quit at 43 or 44. But I sure did have a fantastic 12 or 14 levels worth of fun RvR in the only PvP implementation I've ever been able to stomach.

Sorry for the ramble, I'll go back under my rock now. :-D

[Alan Stern]

12.

Ducki, one distinction that should be mentioned. Your Cleric is a support character. Assuming you didn't go Smite (which it sounds like you didn't), your Cleric healed and buffed. You did not try to hurt enemies directly.

My char was a spell-casting Mentalist. I was trying to damage opposing players. Until I was level 40 or so, damaging level 50 chars was nigh-impossible. Until I was 45 or so, doing more than minor damage to opponents (i.e. tickling them) wasn't possible. Until I hit 50, I couldn't be outfitted properly to possibly withstand one hit.

DuckiLama: To me, "viable" meant "can I have fun, lay down a bit of smack and not be one-shotted?"

Until my Mentalist hit 50, she was not viable.

But this does bring up another interesting facet of PvP play. Certain classes of characters, most notably support classes (healers, buffers, etc.), may be more PvP viable or desirable than other classes. Maybe there's a way to learn from this distinction and incorporate some meaningful change to the rest of the classes/game.

[weasel]

13.

Frank> Many dev thinks implementing consentual PvP is the best way to go. I'm in this camp.

Isn't playing a PvP+ game consenting to PvP? Logging in to UO back in the day was just as much 'consent' as wandering out to Emain is in DAoC.

'Consentual PvP' is about trying to be all things to all people. It's a business decision to add a PvP element in the fashion most inoffensive to the PvE-crowd. It is a token offering, while maintaining that predictable PvE is the preferred way to play.

All else being equal, adding consentual PvP didn't open the flood-gates. Mythic made a solid niche out of proving the viability of part-time PvP, in a predominantly PvE game, but they didn't attract the mass of competitive players that PvP fans believe are out there.

If consensual PvP is the future, then PvP is a dead issue.

[Jim Landes]

14.

We as humans strive to create context and meaning to our actions and to the world around us. This is why we have religion, literature and art.

In existing virtual worlds, the context and meaning elements are generally lacking or missing. We reach into these relatively safe environments with the desire to act out in some fashion a shared contextual experience and consistently come away with the smoke that helped create the illusion of substance.

In completely open PVP systems this shared context usually is missing for the unwilling participants.

The unwilling participants become victims to those who desire personal edification and expression of control and power over other people. Those players who are playing for achievement or social reasons find this victim aspect very limiting and unacceptable. They simply drop their subscription refusing to be part of an experience that makes them feel victimized. Ironically this is one of the reasons they partake in this form of literature: to feel more in control of their lives and destiny.

The requirements of the design becomes how to facilitate the adrenaline experience for players that like intensity, allow for other players not to be victimized, provide context and meaning for both sets of players along this plane, allow for achievement aspects that have meaning and still have a viable Player vrs Player conflict system.

[magicback]

15.

Weasel,

I don't think that there is a mass of competitive players wishing for an MMORPG with the right PvP secret sauce. But, I guess I shouldn't pass judgement until Guild War is out for a few months :)

I think the majority of current and prospective MMORPG players want safe environments to play in and danger zones for extra thrills.

Frank

[Staarkhand]

16.

I do like "consensual" PvP, simply because what I want to do depends on how I feel. I think there should be large portions of the game where you're "at risk", and there should be (very very) good incentives to go there, but I don't want to worry about going afk for 10 min while sitting at the forge or working guild admin issues.

I fall into the "PvP provides compelling content" camp, and there's nothing really more exciting, when you're feeling like that sort of thing. Further, I think the "PvP provides opportunities to grief" stance is limited to games with poor design and ignores the reality of grief play in nonPvP games, which is often worse.

I don't want to take the DAoC tangent too far, but Ducki, it sounds like you played the game early on. When I left the game the question wasn't "are you level 50" it was "are you level 50, with capped gear, and RR5 or higher, preferably with a few ML's under your belt". Or else don't try to get in a good group, you might be able to follow along in the zerg if you want to fool yourself into thinking you're making a difference other than slowing down framerates.

Incidently the minimum level is 1. There was a common misconception early in the game that it was 15 or 20, but that's not true.

[Alan Stern]

17.

Staark, I thought it was 10? :-)

One other item to note, Mythic did add 2 full-PvP servers, Mordred and Aldred(?) ("the Dreds"). Interestingly enough, finding a lack of interest by the players, Mythic consolidated the two into Mordred. So at least in DAOC, there was/is only enough full-time PvP interest to merit one server, no more.

[Estariel]

18.

Tobold has the answer here in identifying time investment as the key to sucessful PvP in MMORPGs. You cannot suceed at PvP as a casual player, because the addict level players will always be better equipped, higher level and more practised.

In the carebear (=nonPVP) worlds, the success of the addict players does not hurt the progress of the casual players. Indeed it helps them, by charting and documenting the road to progression.

But in a PvP environment, the sucess of the addicts is at the direct expense of the casual players.

If, as a game vendor, you want mass market appeal, you cannot afford to have your resource-hungry addict players driving away your cheap-to-service casual players.

[Doccus]

19.

The reason that they ended up consolidating wasn't that there wasn't enough PvP interest. You can take a look at the UO resurgence of private servers to validate that. They have thousands of players.

What happened on Andred / Mordred was symptomatic of the DAoC balancing issues. Basically, there were 1-2 classes who could use cheap tricks and grief with basic impunity. They later fixed (nerfed) the offending class, but many of the hard core PvP folks had already left.

IMHO, Shadowbane did PvP much better. If you had skill, and had tuned your template, you could kill folks many levels above yourself. There were "newbie" zones that had PvP off until the mid levels. If it weren't for the hideous lag problems and other assorted game bugs, I'd probably still be playing it.

DAoC was different. You could actually max your character's level without once having to venture into a PvP zone. Blegh. At least when I see a lvl 50 character in Shadowbane, I can assume he has enough PvP experience to be of some use in a fight :)

Several of my friends work on MMORPGs (at SOE). I'm working at Midway on a MORPG (heh, 4 players). We do spend a lot of time discussing issues, especially since several of my friends are fully in the PvE crowd.

It will be exciting to see how Guild Wars works out. I played the pre-beta during E3, and the XP came in fairly quickly.

You want to know my ideal game? Well, I'm going to tell you anyway :P

o Minimal levelling. Ability to maximize a character in 2-3 weeks.
o Depth of skill / class trees. I want millions of different combinations of offense, defense, and healing.
o All higher level zones PvP enabled (promotes yummy conflict).
o Building creation and ownership.
o Crafting or the ability to own crafting NPCs.
o If realm-based, 5 realms or more.
o PvP dungeons (Darkness Falls in DAoC was wonderful)
o Tournament ladders for group-on-group or army-on-army fights.
o Designed from the start as PvP. No funky "This power works in xxxxx manner in PvE and yyyyy manner (or not at all) in PvP."

What my guild normally does is to center on 2-3 offensive templates and 1-2 support classes. We then refine (by creating character after character and working them to maximum level) each class / skill set. This is the reason we object to long levelling treadmills. I would be just as attached to my character if they started me at maximum level, and then I just had to allocate the points.

Things that matter very little to me, if at all:

o Levelling
o Questing
o "Shopping" for items
o Spending more than 5 minutes getting from any point in the game world to any other point.

When I want to roleplay, I'll do it pen-and-paper style :) When I log onto an online game, I want pain, burning buildings, and opponents that don't wander around in a circle because they can't path to me.

D

[Jeff Freeman]

20.

weasel:

Isn't playing a PvP+ game consenting to PvP? Logging in to UO back in the day was just as much 'consent' as wandering out to Emain is in DAoC.

I was going to say that there hasn't been non-consensual PvP *since* UO, back in the day. It being pretty much the only game in town, lots of people did, in fact, login to a PvP+ environment with no desire to engage in PvP.

But that hasn't been the case for eons, and will never be the case again.

Sort of.

It _is_ possible to structure a game in such a way that PvP is possible, but highly undesirable, and so even the people logging into that gameworld (which is PvP+) get mighty ticked-off when someone there engages in PvP.

I don't know why anyone would want to do that, though.

[Bart]

21.

My primary experience with PvP was UO, all the way from the early days (Dread Lords) through the guild wars, then the faction system. BY FAR, the most fun was the early days, when everyone was affected by PvP. I was a noob and got spanked around in dungeons occasionally, after spending 1 hours collecting gold from weak monsters. This set me back a considerable amount at the time. Eventually I had a decent character, with most prime skills in the mid to upper 80s, and i started to role play a character that dealt out justice to these dread lords. We'd gather at common noobie spots, waiting for a few dread lords to come by, then we'd all jump out of nowhere and begin battle. These were the best times in UO for me. You always had to look over your sholder, whether you were smithing iron or killing demons.

I think, at least for me, this led to a level of immersion I felt with the world that I never felt again in any other VWs/MMORPGs. I could band together with like-minded people and try and rid the world from evil and protect the noobs, or I could decide to play an evil character, wreaking havoc across the countryside. I did eventually turn to the evil side for a while to try that out, and both playing evil and good PvP characters was fun. The MMORPGs now just don't seem to have that built-in sense of conflict and chaos, where everyone needed to be aware of the common threat of PKs, and find ways to deal with this threat.

Thank goodness for all the pre UO:R servers out there now ;)

[Staarkhand]

22.

Shadowbane is the best game ever that sucks. I really wanted to love that game.

[Dee Lacey]

23.

Directly competitive play (of which PvP is sort of a subcategory) isn't really suited to MMORPGs as they currently exist.

There would need to be a more formal organization and more accountability for it to work (as in real life... as someone has mentioned).

I write from the point of view of someone who enjoys MMORPGs specifically for the fact that they are cooperative games primarily, and their competitive aspects are secondary and possible for me to ignore/put up with.

It isn't true that I do not enjoy any competitive games. I enjoy an occasional game of Monopoly, chess, or Reversi. I enjoy Web boggle (weboggle.shackworks.com). But I only enjoy competitive games that I'm somewhat good at, good enough to have a chance of winning at them, and also I prefer it when the victory is more symbolic (having more pieces, or more cash) than "dying," not to mention it would bother me if when I won the loser had some sort of lingering drawback to them other than just the fact of losing (exp loss, item loss, etc.)

But in an MMORPG you really could not allow PvP with any rewards to the winner without commensurate loss to the loser, because if you did, you'd have an obvious exploit where a pair of friends (or a person with 2 accounts) kill each other over and over gaining them both rewards without any losses incurred.

Anyway it's so much more fun to me to play with others when we are all heading to the same goal, when we win or lose as a team.

I don't think of this as "carebear" ish. I think of it as the same mode of gaming that I discovered and loved in the original RPGs, the tabletop D&D type games where a group of friends got together and played. Many of the early ones I played in were more games than role-playing (not most, but quite a few) and they were fun in a game type way. Though MMORPGs really lack in the actual role-playing (I do my roleplaying/storytelling on a freeform message board these days), they do have more of the game style fun of those games that I remember, the number crunching character building stuff we did in our Champions games and the grid&miniatures strategy from the AD&D2 games and the "level up!" character power-growth without the tedium of dice rolling and consulting tables (though you can if you want, there are plenty of hidden percentages and ratios).

The wizards and superheroes and fighter-thieves of those games weren't carebears. Some of them were sweet and some were tough and some were downright crude.

I have a few ideas about what might make a MMORPG I'd enjoy playing in where players were able, by the game physics, to attack one another. But this game would not be PVP that I'm describing. It just wouldn't be safe-by-fiat.

1) After getting the death-blow on another player character, that character is sent to "prison" for one realtime week. The player can play other characters during that time if they wish. Death-blow should be an optional operation as it is in SWG - you can't accidentally kill someone, if you just knock them unconscious you can let them live.

2) The game records all server-side information including chat the dead and death-blowing characters could see, movement of all NPCs and all PCs, for an hour or so before the death until ten minutes or so afterward.

3) During the week the killing player is in prison, anyone who wants to can visit them. They can't attack or be attacked in the prison (plexiglass barrier, etc). The visitor can view the log of the kill as played back by their client from either killer or kill-ee's point of view.

4) The kill-ee can visit the killer in prison and press a release button at any time to let the killer go free.

5) If the kill-ee sets the killer free within 3 hours of the death, the kill-ee takes no experience loss or other loss, and the killer receives no experience gain or other gain. If more than 3 hours, the loss and gain are awarded.

6) Negotiations are permitted between killer and killee to change the game's established loss/gain and effect early release.

7) Certain game officials (GMs or elected players, depending on game) can add time onto the killer's sentence. This may be done to encourage the killer to negotiate in better faith, or to punish particularly egregious cases of murder.

8) It is possible to temporarily turn off PvP (similar to voluntary PvP switches... except in this case, the voluntary agreement is a PvE switch - none of your damage will hit the other person, and none of theirs will hit you). It would give an exp bonus if you and your friends who were grouping for exp set the PvE switch with each other, as well as keeping friendly fire from accidentally taking out your group-mates. You would need to register this pact with an official registrar in a city (both characters have to register each other for it to take hold), and return to the registrar to end the pact (which could be done by either, unilaterally, and the other would be duly notified).

9) and the reason for 8) above is that monsters would not death-blow if any of the damage was done by a fellow player. This would avoid griefing by taking a player down to one hitpoint while they were fighting something that would then kill them. If another player did any damage to you, the monster wouldn't kill you. This would lead to an exploit where players avoided death by hitting each other once per fight... so give an xp bonus to those who don't use this "feature" in this unintended way.

I *think* a game like that would have "pvp" without becoming a game about PvP. There would be the sense of danger where enemies could take you out without it becoming a common thing to be attacked by seeming allies.

[Dee Lacey]

24.

I see that I left out why PvP isn't suited to current types of MMORPGs (even those that have it).

It's already established by earlier posts that PvP is more fun for those that enjoy it if it involves player skill more and character level/loot less.

However if you go all the way to skill you get a sort of Quake type FPS game.

The problem with one of those that is MM is that MM means a massive number of players. In that massive number of players, you will get some that are so good at the game they are not beatable. You get that in regular 20 or so person Quake games already. These are the folks who get banned from various servers for being too good, claimed they cheat, etc. There is a huge range of ability when it comes to "twitch" gaming.

The success of MMORPGs is that they are easy to play but take forever and (are supposed to be) fun while taking forever.

So to make the playing field more level you'd have to introduce a lot more randomness into the game. Or strategy. Maybe if they could make it about player strategy -- but that would require ... ok I'm getting more ideas now so watch me go off the subject again.

What if the PvP competition involved getting a random selection of your powers to use, having to set them up ahead of time rather than choose them as you go, and laying them out to fire in order? Change it from a real time to a turn based competition? Then strategic skill, rather than reflexes, would be the player skill tested. This would also be more amenable to the message board discussion of best tactics in various fights type of thing.

I can see it. Toontown for example already has turn based combat in an MMORPG.

Maybe a sort of collectible card game MMORPG? Yu-gi-oh Online? I challenge you to a duel! That's PvP that sounds ... fun :)

[Staarkhand]

25.

You know, I'm all about supporting different play styles, but I have to say that sounds like about as much fun as a knee to the groin. I'd rather pay $15/mo to go to traffic school.

Back on track, we've seen huge amounts of strategy develop in classic MMO PvP, simply because it removes the twitch physical barrier (it's real, no, you can't learn to give 400 commands a minute in Starcraft just by practicing) and makes the battles a bit more cerebral. Things like min/maxing character skills, optimizing equipment for different strategies and playstyles, experimenting with different group makeups, surprise, distraction and deception, information superiority, misinformation, effective communication, chain of command, I could go on.

The strategic element is always there, the question is just how much will it be buried in the "twitch" skill required? Top-level CS players talk strategy, but only because they've overcome the physical barriers. RPGs bring the physical barrier down enough to be manageable (as in strategy has a chance to emerge) but leave it high enough to account for developing situations like use of terrain, morale, communication, etc. Chess is "strategy", but in a way it completely misses a large portion of real strategy, as in adapting to changing situations, etc.

I'm rambling a bit. My point is I disagree with the statement that RPGs don't lend themselves to PvP. I will mostly agree that (MM)RPGs may not lend themselves to unrestriced PvP, but since PvPers and carebears are motivated by different rewards, shouldn't it be possible to reward both without infringing on the other's play? I think DAoC made it a long ways in that direction, except for ToA which was always critisized for essentially crashing the two worlds together (making a ton of PvE required for PvP, etc).

[Dee Lacey]

26.

I love the traffic school comment. I have to say that "pain, burning buildings, and opponents that don't wander around in a circle because they can't path to me" sounds almost exactly like traffic school. Substitute in cars for buildings and you have it exact. Well, a few roundabouts more or less.

And "I was a noob and got spanked around in dungeons occasionally, after spending 1 hours collecting gold from weak monsters. This set me back a considerable amount at the time" sounds even less fun. But in that first quote, that's what the author stated is what they want when they pay for a game; and the second is another author's start of his favorite gaming experience.

Personally, I like to read science fiction and fantasy. I like those genres much better than I like reading stories (of comparable literary quality otherwise) set in a more literally real world. I know, though, that my favorite books aren't going to be bestsellers because, even though they're what I like, they aren't what everyone likes.

PvP fans need to look at the statistics. Most people who even play MMORPGs prefer not to have PvP. You love PvP, that's great, that isn't going to make it a bestseller.

On the other hand it's certainly possible that one or two instances of PvP games will hit a popular fancy. They won't be what you consider the true PvP spirit, but they'll seem like PvP to everyone else. Kinda like how I view Star Wars or Harry Potter.

[Jim Landes]

27.

Dee Larcy> "The success of MMORPGs is that they are easy to play but take forever and (are supposed to be) fun while taking forever. "

I am not sure that this is a correct premis. perhaps "The success of MMORPG's have been successful despite the huge time commitment and taking forever."

Dee Larcy> "So to make the playing field more level you'd have to introduce a lot more randomness into the game. Or strategy. Maybe if they could make it about player strategy -- but that would require ... ok I'm getting more ideas now so watch me go off the subject again."

You are exactly on the right track here, continue along this line of thought.

Question your assumptions and look at root causes. Don't get caught up in the limitations of existing designs and strive for natural elegance in the solution.

It is indeed possible to design a game offering that vastly appeals to both the so called and termed "Carebear" and "PVP" crowd. Most of the confusion appears to be that we are asking questions based upon assumptions that may not be completely valid or well defined.

I am of the firm belief that PVP is a necessary if not integral component of an offering that has broad appeal.

The main issue that I am witnessing is that we are addressing the symptoms or salient aspects of the problem. We do not seem to be uncovering the root aspects that will reveal the solution.

I suspect that the design solution will be found not in focusing on individual play, but on group play.

Upon examination I think that group vrs group combat provides the mechanisms that are needed to reach the design goals we collectively are seeking.

We are conditioned by past experience to look upon these Virtual Worlds in terms of "I" as in the individual. Perhaps if we expand our scope we can illuminate some interesting possabilities.

Comments?

[weasel]

28.

Jim Landes> We are conditioned by past experience to look upon these Virtual Worlds in terms of "I" as in the individual. Perhaps if we expand our scope we can illuminate some interesting possabilities.

A focus on a group context can indeed provide a richer experience for the individual. This, imo, is one of the keystones of a healthy PvP system, and the only way to go.

For instance, in allowing a group to conquer an objective for prestige, power, fun and profit, we allow the goals of one Achiever to provide an umbrella of context for those aligned with him.

Those with the innate desire to set their own goals become an asset which drives other players toward content.

We charge off to fight these other players - because we must take this fort for ourselves.

As Ducki showed upthread, when achievements are focused around the group - even in individual failure can a player frame the context of the battle as a victory. Ducki helped turn the tide of combat, and that feels good - even though his particular character may have spent an unfortunate amount of time face-down.

The trick is - for this to be effective, the vast majority of PvP achievements and rewards must be premised on the achievement of tasks that require a group. Dark Age of Camelot again provides a pertinent example.

Early on in the game's days, PvP was all about taking keeps, and slightly later, relics. These were feats that required at least a group, and on average quite a few. One could only display their achievement in PvP by pointing to the achievement of their realm.

The reward for capturing and holding relics was a small power boost to all citizens of a realm possessing a relic. Grouping was ad-hoc, friendly, inclusive. No matter how small or insignificant your character might be in single combat - their presence alone might tip the scales. Anyone and everyone was included.

However, Mythic (unfortunately imo) added a reward for individual PvP achievement. PvP conflict was rewarded with 'realm points' (RPs) and with these points the player could choose additional abilities which made him even stronger. To add salt to the wound - these Realm Abilities were massively more powerful than the reward for holding relics. The root problem with the system was that a group, let alone a collection of groups, was not at all required to earn RPs. In fact, the more 'effective' your group, the more RPs you would earn.

They days of the group achievement were gone. The days of individual achievement came right back. The PvP game suddenly became exclusive. People not good in individual combat, not fitting the 'right' balance for the group, were turned away. Taking relics was largely ignored - because it was much harder to organize, and the reward was much smaller.

Framing PvP in the context of 'we' is a powerful tool, but the challenge is keeping it always inclusive. New players, weak players, unskilled players - must all automatically belong. They must feel welcome and must be able to point to group achievement as vindication in the event of individual failure.
They may even be just as well served by having others on which to lay blame, to cope with group failure amidst individual success.

[Brask Mumei]

29.

weasel: "New players, weak players, unskilled players - must all automatically belong."

That should be the mantra, not only for PvP, but for all of MMORPGs.

New weak players must *also* belong in group oriented PvE battles! One thing I loved about UO was that one could sensibly adventure with a 1 week old player. Contrast with EQ, where the 1 week old player gets left in the starting village as everyone else goes off and has fun.

This goes back to the quick-to-maximize point. I strongly believe that maximum character level should be achievable in 2-3 weeks by a power gamer. If not less. There is no need for a huge power inflation. People have shown as much interest in a Potted Plant as in the Ubersword of Killing. The reward of defeating the Plane of L33tness shouldn't be an unbalancing item. It could be just a potted plant - so long as the only way to get potted plants is via said plane, players will be surprisingly happy.

This all then loops back to the PvP situation. If character level doesn't predominate, we then have skill + numbers predominate. Of these, I believe numbers should always dominate. Why?

1) You want to encourage grouping. If another newbie makes ones team stronger, one will happily add a newbie. If skill dominates, one would reject them as you will be distracted.

2) You want to avoid PvP griefing. PvP griefers are usually much more skilled than their prey. If one griefer attacks 10 socializers, you want the socializers to win, no matter how incompetent their fighting skills are. (Well, maybe not no matter how incompetent. One should never underestimate incompetence)

- Brask Mumei

[magicback]

30.

People at Guild Wars think they got the right mix for PvP+.

What do think about their designs so far and what you would do to improve upon it.

http://www.guildwars.com/

Frank

[weasel]

31.

Brask Mumei>Of these, I believe numbers should always dominate.

This would work for a world focused on consistancy and plausibility. A world focused on fair and convenient fun however - would likely need to restrict numbers to prevent inevitable claims of 'zerging'.

Brask Mumei>I strongly believe that maximum character level should be achievable in 2-3 weeks by a power gamer. If not less
At which point I wonder: why bother clinging to levels at all? If the game is to be balanced, levelling is the one item that will get in the way. Either the 'levels' are mostly meaningless, so that a newbie can adventure with an experienced player, or they are unbalancing and will cause stratification. (what takes the hardcore weeks, takes the casual months)

As I've always figured: if we can make an end-game appeal to players without amplification of power as a reward - why do we bother with the grind in the first place? Let's just skip to the good stuff.

Frank> What do think about their designs so far and what you would do to improve upon it.

Guild Wars is an interesting one. It's lack of persistance removes it from having to worry too much about the traditional problems of managing a persistent world community. It's more a cooperative RPG that you have to play online, with a central matching system in-engine.

Granted we'll have to see how it works out before we actually know how they did. That said, the thing that I wonder about the most, is why they use a Collectible-Card-Game-style skill system (excellent decision imo) but then still include classes and levels (blech)?

Granted their 'matching system' style of play mitigates the problems of finding a fair fight. Their heavy instancing obviates concerns of a gank-fest. And level-stratification amongst the playerbase between casuals and hardcore isn't really a problem for their setup.

They're working off different assumptions than persistent world designers are. Their solutions would still be our problems.

[MM]

32.

The problem with consensual PVP is that no one who really deserves to be whacked is going to give consent.

The problem with level-based restrictions on PVP is that is simply changes the griefing group from high-level players to low-level players. And that's even more annoying because just ANYONE can create a throw-away and make people miserable.

The successful pvp model will make PVP certainly detrimental to the loser, and possibly destrimental the winner. Dragonrealms is my favored PVP model (I haven't played Achea). There, you can walk up to whoever and start attacking. If you are in a town, you go to jail and will have a fine to pay, and that is in addition to possibly temporary lockout from the game. If you kill 3 people in 24 hours, you need to have a really good reason for it to avoid a lockout, and short of self defense I don't know that anyone has produced such a reason. The thing is, when someone really has it coming, you can let them have it. Add this to the fact that permanent death is a real (if remote) possibility, and you really have a winner. You would be amazed at how well this model keeps player behavior in check. No one wants to die (especially repeatedly) because they could lose their character, and people don't run around killing people at random because they don't want to get locked out.

And then, of course, there are duels for people who just want to fool around. People in legit duels don't have to worry about being locked out (and even enjoy a reduced risk of death).

I haven't really formed an opinion on the looting of player corpses. In my model, I think it would be ok. But without heavy-duty restrictions on pvp, no one would ever use the best items in the game for fear of losing them. It's not impossible that that is a good side-effect. I do like to use my equipment though. Killing someone to take their stuff... there is the possibility for flavorful play, but more often than not it's going to be called griefing. I don't know if it should be allowed.

Finally, I want to add that running around killing noobs is not a legitimate style of play in my opinion. That's just griefing. And it can be proven to be griefing by how fervently the PVP+ crowd insists that the be allowed to kill just anyone. If you want to have that sort of random violence in your game, build an arena and let people go at it gladiator-style in the arena (charge admission to participate and to watch, and give prizes to the winners). Not on the city streets.

[Trevor]

33.

PvP only works well when the avatars fighting each other are of roughly equal power, and it is the skill of the player determining the outcome. This is a given in most popular online shooters, from Doom to Socom.

That's an important point. While defensive and offensive pickups make all the difference in the game, you are in competition to obtain those items as much as you are to inflict damage on others and avoid it yourself. In the most common scenario there are no abstract limitations on a character's ability within the game world. All players have the same ability to use weapons and armor and so on.

MMORPG are built around the concept of player avatars becoming more powerful with time, there is "character development". But that automatically means that a level 10 warrior played by any newbie will win a combat against the level 1 warrior played by the worlds greatest PvP expert. And even if two players have the same level, the quality of their equipment can still vary widely, and make PvP rather uneven.

The sandbox-loving part of me thinks that is supremely cool. However, of course, it does lead to extreme imbalance in non-consensual PvP.

Whenever I think about PvP in MMOGs I relate it directly to meatspace behaviour. What's to stop people from going out and victimizing others in the Real World? Laws? Morality? That can be argued to no end, but the fact is that not everyone is deterred from bullying and worse. We label them criminals and they are punished for their behaviour whenever possible.

Why then do we expect anything OTHER than rampant victimizing of the underpowered when there is no responsive system of punishment built into these games? Especially when in this medium so many otherwise decent people find themselves suffering from Keyboard Lycanthropy, forgetting that there's a living and breathing person at the other end of the connection with feelings of their own.

Without going as far as laying out half-baked theories of morality enforcement systems, I would say that an easy way to discourage victimizing characters of a lesser level is to associate an immediate penalty to the bully and make it more costly with each level of difference between the characters. Losing reputation or experience points or finding yourself out of favor with the game's deity(/deities)... whatever.

Make the experience unpleasant for the bully and I think they'll do it a lot less.

[Doccus]

34.

PvP fans need to look at the statistics. Most people who even play MMORPGs prefer not to have PvP. You love PvP, that's great, that isn't going to make it a bestseller.

The most successful MMORPG is PvP+. Lineage. Reportedly about 1.2 million subscribers. Granted, most are in Asia, not the US.

We haven't had a US-based, PvP+ game since the early days of UO. UO was, however, wildly popular and basically brought the MMORPG genre to the masses :)

D

[MM]

35.

Trevor, what to do then, about the throw away characters that insist on being bothersome? These level restrictions protect a group regardless of their actions. If you can't kill the people who injure you (in some way), why bother with pvp at all?

All PVP isn't griefing. Sometimes it's quite warranted. And that PVP needs to be allowed to happen. But other PVP is griefing, and the walls need to cave in around those people when they have it coming. Level based restrictions make that impossible.

[Staarkhand]

36.

Any comparison of PvP to real life killing is as utterly rediculous as comparing my schooling you at Go Fish to homicide. A truly useless meme that needs to end sooner rather than later.

Also, I keep seeing words like "victimize" and "grief" in instances where it actually means "engaging another player in combat".

If there's ever going to be a meaningful discussion of these different playstyles, get rid of the presupposition that all PK'ing is automatically a crime.

I totally disagree that PvP has to be detremental (in-game) to the loser. That's a carry-over from PvE Achiever mentality. Most PKs are happy just to have won.

[magicback]

37.

Staarkhand>Also, I keep seeing words like "victimize" and "grief" in instances where it actually means "engaging another player in combat".

I think "victimize" and "grief" is legitmate cognitive and emotional interpretation of certain events. Like, if you cut me off in traffic, you may only be pass me, but I had a bad day, so I'm going take that action as griefing.

The games popular in Asia and Europe are PvP+ with certain protection for newbies. Legend of Mir, with 700,000 concurrent at one time last year, does well in Asia and Europe. I think the PvP discussion is partially influenced by cultural affinities. For the US, there are relatively stronger history of consumer protection and enforced "equality." This clouds the discussion.

People in Asia may not like griefing, but they're ok playing with PvP+ games as that implementation is more realistic to them and they have adapted to it (hard to grief a whole guild). But then, you get gang fights as result.

Anyway,

Perhaps all the PvP+ pplayer are flocking to these Asian/European creations.

Frank
Frank

[Trevor]

38.

MM

I attempted to avoid presenting that as an actual solution, more a suggestion of the kind of cause and effect that would make players think twice before engaging in abusive activities.

All PVP isn't griefing. Sometimes it's quite warranted. And that PVP needs to be allowed to happen. But other PVP is griefing, and the walls need to cave in around those people when they have it coming. Level based restrictions make that impossible.

I agree, and I'm glad you made mention of this. It occurred to me as I posted but I was trying to keep myself from getting too wordy. Event with artificial restrictions in place to discourage out-and-out attacking of other players, that doesn't mean they won't find a way. Read anything written on emergent behaviour and you'll find the author will quickly make it plain that gamers will always come up with ways of manipulating a game world that the developers never expected.

Don't think I'm under the impression that all PvP is griefing. I do see it as a justified response to another player's actions when they infringe upon your gameplay experience. A person has a right to defend himself. I'm not a role play kind of guy, but there's also the argument that some jobs/classes are supposed to be amoral. Thieves, necromancers, certain priests, etc.

I certainly don't think PvP without an opt-in system is innately bad, only that some way to police it within the game is the only way to avoid killing the fun for everyone but the most powerful of players.

Staarkhand

You managed to miss the point in a very dramatic way. Drawing a comparison between game worlds and the real one is only done to illustrate the cause and effect that keeps the large majority of people from casual criminal behaviour in the real world and how that hasn't been carried over into virtual worlds.

Also, I keep seeing words like "victimize" and "grief" in instances where it actually means "engaging another player in combat".

Perhaps. But I was specifically talking about victimizing activity, which is the root of the problem as I see it, not PvP in general.

[Brask Mumei]

39.

weasel> At which point I wonder: why bother clinging to levels at all?

Levels? I'm fully opposed to levels. I should have clarified. I am also fully opposed to classes. One should have one MMORPG character for your entire time playing the game. This character should be adaptable and able to fulfill any role you wish to play in the game. The 2-3 weeks would be how long it takes to completely and radically change your template. Ie, Brask the Wizard becomes Brask the Swordfighter.

You still want *some* time spent, or I'll just reassign my skillset in middle of a battle :>

- Brask Mumei

[weasel]

40.

Brask> Levels? I'm fully opposed to levels. I should have clarified. I am also fully opposed to classes.
It's always good to hear that I'm not the only one.

One should have one MMORPG character for your entire time playing the game.

Slight point of contention here: one should be able to perform any role or fulfill any playstyle with a single character. However, it's always good to remember that the concept of role playing itself encourages alts - if only to explore different characters without appearing to be schizophrenic. Whereas only 'roleplayers' bother doing so now, I believe in games without classes and levels the importance of identifying a distinctive appearance and personality with a particular character will become much more important.

You still want *some* time spent, or I'll just reassign my skillset in middle of a battle

Naturally not, but what benefit do we gain from making the acquisition of top-tier-power take so long? Ostensibly the role of a gradual increase in power is to allow the player to learn the game and capabilities gradually. I would be impressed with ay game deep enough to justify took 2-3 weeks of casual play to ramp up to speed.

Personally I'm in favor of a more Collectible-Card-Game style of ability system, with an ever expanding 'deck' of possible capabilities and a smaller, fixed-size 'deck' of 'usable' abilities.

Naturally selecting and rearranging what known abilities are 'usable' would only be allowed at certain times, and with an in-game delay of some type. But this way, should someone have invested the time to know swordplay, and then switched to wizardry -- he wouldn't have to re-learn anything, to jump back into the warrior role for a particular play-session. It would make grouping more fluid, and wouldn't have a character having to 'lose' or 'relearn' abilities that had been earned.

I'll stop here, as we're pretty far off topic at this point :)

[MM]

41.

I totally agree that some guilds/classes are innately immoral, and I also agree that they should be allowed to be played in this fashion.

The problem with this is that if you are going to allow bandits to attack caravans in the game, you need to at least give the caravan a way to protect itself. The obvious solution is to hire guards. But with in-game economies as broken as they are, who could afford to do this? While it is regrettable, I think robbing the wayfarer needs to be limited to stealing (at least until the thieves are caught stealing). To allow attacks gives the griefers too much rope.

On in game enforcement, I absolutely agree that this is a must. And I'll pay extra to play a game that has it, for the record. But unless you are really talking about having a police force of some kind, you still need some system mechanic to handle the instances that aren't exceptional. And that is primarily in the intrest of cost. And again, if someone wants to do it, I don't mind paying for it. But there seems to be much resistance to this.

Starkhand:
On the similarities to real life... griefing is griefing because I (a player) say it is. I'm sure you've heard the expression "your rights end where mine begin". Read it and understand it. I am a supporter of player vs. player combat, but I don't want to have a confrontation with every character on the road. Why must I be forced to play like this? If you don't like it, don't play! I don't mean that to sound disrespectful, but the idea that every player in a game has put up with that style of play is ridiculous. It's not what we are paying for, and the pk++ crowd are badly outnumbered here. At least among the gamers I've met in the 25 years I've been gaming.

[B. Smith]

42.

Consequences. Why are there no long term consequences to anything in a supposedly RPG game?

Some RPGs allow a character to contract a wasting disease, and faction changes can certainly be made durable, so why not long term consequences for combat?

Why don't people go around attacking each other at random in real life? (At least very few people other than hormone drunk young males) Because you can get HURT that way.

You can get killed, which is permanent. But it seems to be an article of faith with game designers that perma death is bad. So how about permanent damage? The concept of scar tissue? Consider that an old swordsman will pick up scars in the course of his life. As his skill and experience increases his speed will slow down, and his agility will also fall with age. Also, old injuries can be disabling. It would be simple to program in an X% probability of a damaging blow by another player of causing some permament damge. Say the loss of an eye. Or theloss of an arm, or a permanently damaged leg that makes the character limp.

Stop rewarding obsessed power gamers with godlike power and invulnerability. Leave any player at least somewhat vulnerable to any other player. But make it impossible for a pk griefer to conduct that kind of behavior over the long term without picking up a debilitating number of scars and injuries.

Experience, skill (both player skill and character skill) and knowledge of tactics will still make a big difference. But a tired old PK griefer with one eye, a bum leg, and strained back, partial deafness, slow reflexes from stiff joints caused by repeated impact blows, etc. will not be nearly as dangerous to a spry young newbie with good reflexes.

Just a thought.

[Staarkhand]

43.

"Your rights end where mine begin"
I don't like completely free PvP, I've said before I like there to be safe and unsafe zones. I'm just saying not all PvP is a crime, which is the flavor I keep hearing.

"I am a supporter of player vs. player combat, but I don't want to have a confrontation with every character on the road."
Me too. Historically I PvP like 5% of my time, and that's the way I want it. But it's because I'm not in the mood, not because I'm feeling less sinful, which is the implication I'm trying to avoid.

"You managed to miss the point in a very dramatic way. Drawing a comparison between game worlds and the real one is only done to illustrate the cause and effect that keeps the large majority of people from casual criminal behaviour in the real world and how that hasn't been carried over into virtual worlds."
Did I? How can that last sentence have any relevance without the implication that PKers are casual criminals? We're not talking about hacking accounts and stealing credit cards online, we're talking about intentional competition.

I will posit that elective PvP is a nonzero sum game. Not each encounter, but as a whole. Any takers?

[Tom Hunter]

44.

I am going to focus on a very narrow aspect of PvP but one that I think would have a large and positive impact.

Oddly its from real life experience in massive multiperson armored combat that I got during 10 years of fighting in the SCA. (a group with interest in European History 600 AD to 1600 AD including armored combat)

In the real world you cna choose how agressive to be in combat. If you choose to be defensive you can stay alive much longer than if you choose offense all other things being equal. This is not an option in any of the PvP games I have played.

Also in the real world you are constantly choosing between tiring yourself out and resting. If you get tired you get dead much more easily.

In games there is no real penalty to getting tired.

Just adding these two elements would make PvP combat more interesting and also (I think) more viable in a game.

[Jeff Lotton]

45.

I think Tobold summaraized the situation pretty well, but only for a charater based 'level-up' type MMPORG.

These types of OLGs were derived from the AD&D of the '70s and most of the AD&D play was NOT PvP, in fact the basic gameplay outline of AD&D was entirely coop between the players.

As someone else said, PvP works better where the avatars are essentially equally endowed and the players themselves develop thier abilities. But then you die a lot. People tend to not like that and it usually means a low subscriber base.

JHL

[Jeff Lotton]

46.

"Upon examination I think that group vrs group combat provides the mechanisms that are needed to reach the design goals we collectively are seeking..."

Of course, and that is what WWIIOL is based on.

JHL

[Jim Landes]

47.

This is true in the strictest sense of the definition and I think is an excellent example of a form of the right model.

Yet even so, it does not solve all of the problems with non-historical and less linear MMORPG’s.

In this model we are subscribing to fight. The sides are drawn, the enemy known, the historical context is well ingrained into our psyche. The context is clear and as such, if we elect to participate, death of our avatar or units is part of the accepted risk.

This is not generally true set of expectations for the more non-linear "Fantasy" offerings.

Jim

[Staarkhand]

48.

On a side note, when did EQ stop being the poster child for how to make an outdated broken game that everyone hates except those still "addicted"? Last I was aware new games toted how they were different from the linear levels-as-substitute-for-content treadmill, not saying "well 400k players can't be wrong, this has to be the right way to make a game".

Enter PvP (in some controlled format) as a means to introduce lasting meaningful content.

[Brian 'Psychochild' Green]

49.

Ah, I don't read Terra Nova as often as I should. I'm responding to this a bit late.

I've skimmed the comments, but haven't given them deep consideration. Pardon me if I repeat a few things.

I run Meridian 59, a PvP-focused online game. M59 was launched a year before UO; it was published by 3DO. The game has always had a strong PvP bent.

PvP is an interesting topic. I started working on Meridian 59 in 1998, giving me a lot of time to ponder PvP.

One of the biggest problems is that many people have very strong pre-conceived notions of what PvP is based on stories or sometimes personal experience with other games. Most people are familiar with level-based games, so they consider how poorly PvP works in these types of environments. The character's level or any other stats (including items) can't be the primary determination of the character's power against other characters. You have to have some other measurement which makes the outcome not be a foregone conclusion. This could be player knowledge, tactics, twitch, whatever.

You have the same problem with many game mechanics. Meridian 59, for example, has players drop (almost) everything when they die. In a equipment-based game, this is murder. However, given that most items in Meridian 59 are easily obtainable and that the game gives you plenty of ways to store sets of backup equipment, this penalty is not as harsh as it sounds. However, your typical EQ player hearing about this penalty is going to cringe at the thought of losing all their lovely, lovely loot when they are killed.

The other issue is that a lot of the things that make for great bragging rights in other games sometimes make for very poor mechanics in PvP games. Meridian 59 strives to keep indivdual server populations fairly low, with the ideal population being 50-150 players online in a single shard. Many players are used to the "bigger is better!" mentality, so they see this smaller size as a disadvantage. Smaller server sizes help the community because people get to know each other, reputations are easy to track with a few hundred people on the server instead of several thousand, and the world is small enough so that random PKers can't just run off to another area of the vast land in order to avoid retribution.

Another big issue is learning curve and the power curve. A sufficiently interesting game with enough complexity to keep me interested in it for years is going to have a sharp learning curve. Even if the basic rules are easy to pick up, the strategies for playing the game can take a while to learn. Consider the oft-used example of chess; even if I learn how the pieces move, it will take a very long time before I learn enough to even try to hold my own against grandmaster level players.

You also have issues with the power curve. Allowing anyone to just sign into the game and create a throwaway random PKer won't help your game. It's going to frustrate people that are interested in the persistent aspect of the online game. There has to be a bit of "treadmill" so that there is some investment required into a new character. And, again, people on the beginning of the power curve are going to behave differently than veterans do. A couple of (casual, generally non-PvP) friends that played Meridian 59 took a year to become competent at the game and build their first characters. Now, however, they can build characters within a month.

Finally, you have the issue that people simply don't like to lose. Losing always stings, even if it's a fairly minor defeat. Every time a person loses a fight against a worthy opponent, it still stings and there have been quite a few people that have quit M59 at least temporarily after taking a particularly humiliating defeat. Zero-sum battles where one person has to lose in order for someone else to win aren't necessarily the best things to retain your playerbase.

As an extension to this: cheating is a much bigger issue in PvP games. Because people hate to lose, many of them will take any advantage possible in order to ensure that they come out victorious. Monsters don't complain about hackers and cheaters, but other players sure will! On the other hand, even if you do police cheaters strictly people will still use it as a defense for their honor, thrusting accusations (which eat up CS time) against opponents that "shouldn't have won" the fight. A joke I tell to other game admins goes, "Q: What's a cheater in Meridian 59? A: Anyone who's currently winning a PvP match!"

Personally, I prefer more open PvP games. But, games that focus on PvE are showing to be more popular than those that put the primary focus on PvP.

Have fun,

[Daniel Keen]

50.

WoW being my first mmorpg i really havent been into mmorpgs for more than a year or so now. I have also played guild wars and must say im dissapointed at its lack of content. The problem in an instanced game like gw is that everything is controled. Its not realistic its not stimulating and its not fun, period. Also the fact that gw has a cap of lvl 20 and yet offers no endgame to compensate for such a short leveling process really hampers it. And that is what is most important in a game, especially a mmorpg, content. WoW has an almost infinite amount of content, if your a carebear you can run around on your mount to go fish and collect materials or whatever to make things for the economy etc etc, and if you like pvp you can run around in contested territories raiding towns etc etc. However as wow progresses i am finding it more and more dissapointing and hopefully darkfall will address my issues. I am a pvp junkie, i play gunbound and rakion which are too great free games if you guys want something to captivate you for a few weeks. I played wc3 and got really good at it, and played diablo 2 for a good number of years mostly focusing around pvp when i actually learned how to play d2. And actually I think i am beginning to enjoy d2 more than wow, wow is to grind oriented and im very skeptical about spending 10+ day of time played to level a character to 60 just to find out id rather play character b or c. The best mmo imo would be one that combines twitch and strategy to promote having skill, with real life accuracy like Morrowind, Lineage, and UO (ie you can build houses ,forts, raid places, have seiges, start your own bandit camp etc etc) along with the mechanics and skill/talent system in wow. Now this would satisfy all a pvpers needs. As for the carebears, they could perhaps run the economy. They could do all the grinding and socializing they wanted by mining stone or metal to make the forts castles, blacksmith to make armor/weapons/utilities/ or fish/hunt for food or anything you can thing of really. And by making itemization controlled by the carebears you could easily make pvp death have consequences like people looting u etc etc. You could even make it possible to be a thief and to have a theifs guild, or on the other hand have bounty hunters or maybe (rl human)guards to take out these theifs. This would hopefully create an entirely self sufficient virtual world. Except perhaps maybe a few capital cities where people could start off, train skills, learn the ropes etc etc. Just make the world as real and detailed as possible. Make horses and wagons to transport crap, make an engine to let you custom build you own house or even a temple (something like The Sims engine, comes to mind) . I would personally like the game fps style maybe a view close to the avatar, but remove the hack n slash flaw by introducing skills in WoW like charge, intercept, hamstring, backstabs, garroting, ranged combat, magic and area of effect combat, healing etc etc. Make different races with different perks(like run speed, attack speed, casting speed, night vision and whatnot) the most important thing though is to have content that isnt static. A self sufficient world would do just that, along with release of new content by designers ;D