Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

PvP discussion, how is it different from being killed by monsters?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
13 replies to this topic

#1 JoshNet83   Members   -  Reputation: 137

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:09 AM

I would like everyone to discuss their feelings on PVP, particularly these questions:

1. Does it feel different to be killed by a player than it does by an NPC/monster? If so, why? What if the player is controlling a monster rather than a human?

2. What weaknesses have you seen in other games which implement PVP?

3. What would make it easier for you to cope with your 'sandcastle being kicked down' by bullies or griefers?

4. Would you be more acceptable to PVP if you felt that you always had a fighting chance?

5. Do you get positive excitement from battling other players?

Sponsor:

#2 sunandshadow   Moderators   -  Reputation: 4916

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:22 AM

PvP tends to be much less under the player's control and much less fair/easy than PvE. In order to make PvP fair I'd personally take the following steps:
1A. PvP must either be confined within an arena system which automatches people of appropriate levels and PvP rank, OR
1B. PvP must be levelless or level-equalized such that the aggressed person is never of lover lever than the aggressor, AND people already fighting a monster cannot be aggressed AND there are no penalties for dying when aggressed in a PvP match.

It does feel a bit different to be killed by a monster than a player, because a monster isn't intentionally harming you, it's just following its programmed nature and you had the bad luck to get attacked. But if you can tell a monster is controlled by a player, then it's not too different from regular PvP. But it's fun to be able to control a monster and fun when a monster acts surprising because another player is controlling it. Especially if a player controlling a monster can emote with it, or wander around in town, that can be hilarious. Posted Image


Edit: I just wanted to add, PvP doesn't have to be combat. I was playing a PvP game of show jumping horses today. I've played great PvP games of racing. Puzzle Pirates has PvP tetris and frozen-bubble clones. Pseudo Babble is a hilarious online magnetic poetry game where several people play against each other. All sorts of card, board, and puzzle games could be fun to play against another player in the context of an online game.

Edited by sunandshadow, 30 November 2012 - 03:45 AM.

Phone game idea available free to someone who will develop it (Alphadoku game - the only existing phone game of this type is both for windows phone only and awful. PM for details.)


I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me. I also love pet-breeding games.


#3 Bacterius   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 8870

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:05 AM

2. What weaknesses have you seen in other games which implement PVP?

In many games I have played the PvP system tends to degenerate into a "who has the best gear & lowest latency" game, which is not fun considering you cannot alter your situation (you cannot buy better gear if you can't win at least a few battles, and you obviously cannot change your latency).

4. Would you be more acceptable to PVP if you felt that you always had a fighting chance?

Yes.

5. Do you get positive excitement from battling other players?

Yes.

The slowsort algorithm is a perfect illustration of the multiply and surrender paradigm, which is perhaps the single most important paradigm in the development of reluctant algorithms. The basic multiply and surrender strategy consists in replacing the problem at hand by two or more subproblems, each slightly simpler than the original, and continue multiplying subproblems and subsubproblems recursively in this fashion as long as possible. At some point the subproblems will all become so simple that their solution can no longer be postponed, and we will have to surrender. Experience shows that, in most cases, by the time this point is reached the total work will be substantially higher than what could have been wasted by a more direct approach.

 

- Pessimal Algorithms and Simplexity Analysis


#4 kuramayoko10   Members   -  Reputation: 386

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:04 AM

1. Does it feel different to be killed by a player than it does by an NPC/monster?

Yes, it is very different. When playing a PvP battle every player wants to be the best and wants his/her name highlighted in the top1 rank. When loosing to a player, his ego crashes yours making you want more battles, to restore your pride. That is what makes PvP going on and on forever.

If so, why? What if the player is controlling a monster rather than a human?

The only game that I've seen this happening is Resident Evil 5, and in this game it was more friends playing pranks on each other than fight and rivalry.

2. What weaknesses have you seen in other games which implement PVP?

The fact that it does not depend on your skills as a player. Many games simply ignore that and put all the value into each others gear.

5. Do you get positive excitement from battling other players?

I like it when it is a shooter game, but I hate it when it is an RPG game.
Programming is an art. Game programming is a masterpiece!

#5 sunandshadow   Moderators   -  Reputation: 4916

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 02 December 2012 - 02:11 AM

An additional thing about PvP I was noticing today - I often win with a fairly bad performance (because my opponent somehow managed to screw up even worse) and lose with a near-perfect performance (when both of you perform very well, someone has to win, even if it's by only a few points or a few tenths of a second). That's not vary psychologically satisfying.

Phone game idea available free to someone who will develop it (Alphadoku game - the only existing phone game of this type is both for windows phone only and awful. PM for details.)


I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me. I also love pet-breeding games.


#6 Heaven   Members   -  Reputation: 503

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 02 December 2012 - 09:38 AM

An additional thing about PvP I was noticing today - I often win with a fairly bad performance (because my opponent somehow managed to screw up even worse) and lose with a near-perfect performance (when both of you perform very well, someone has to win, even if it's by only a few points or a few tenths of a second). That's not vary psychologically satisfying.

Maybe that's because you're not psychologically (possibly even physiologically, assuming you're female?) compelled to the level of competitiveness that results in those VERY same outcomes feeling extremely satisfying. Especially the latter!

The most recent example for me (unfortunately?) is World of Warcraft Arena PvP. I have actually had matches where I would get an adrenaline rush. I mean seriously, a flight or fight reaction, sitting in the safety of my house in my computer chair? Those moments are very rewarding and satisfying and what I think PvP is all about.

Have I ever had the same satisfying reaction versus PvE/AI controlled "monsters"? Yes but to a very smaller degree. I mean pulling a number out of my hat we're talking 10x less satisfying. A trickle compared to a rush. Knowing you're going up against other thinking people makes things way more exciting. Although thinking about it just now, and to put things in perspective if I ever jumped out of an airplane to skydive it would probably make any PvP rush I could experience on my computer seem a trickle in comparison as well. Heh.

Re: 3) If I had the same opportunity to "kick down their sandcastle". That would take some of the sting out of it. "I'll get you back one day, you rat *******!"

Re: 4) Definitely! It's one of my biggest complaints about WoW Arena PvP. What's fair about throwing combatants into battle together who have the possibility of having vastly differing qualities of gear? In my opinion Arena in WoW should start every team off with a packaged set of equal powered gear tailored for their class/spec. Then you get a pure skill match for the most part.

Also, I would prefer a PvP game to be more skill based. Even the lowliest "level 1" nub should have a chance, however remote! of being able to take down or significantly damage (think permanently maim) a much higher level player. There are many paper/pencil/dice RPGs that incorporate mechanics like this (e.g., Rolemaster and their wickedly detailed critical hit tables). That way even a lone wolf godly assassin has a chance of being taken down by a lucky off strike by some peasant, or has to honestly weigh his chances when taking on 5 level 2 guards.

Sunandshadow, while your definition of what makes PvP "fair" has some merits and those guidelines certainly encompass a certain type of PvP (i.e., arena/battleground matches), you lose a huuuuuuge amount of what also makes PvP FUN!

For a humorous aside, this is how I read one of your statements Sunandshadow:
"1B. PvP must be levelless or level-equalized such that the aggressed person is never of lover [sic] lever [sic] than the aggressor, AND people already fighting a monster cannot be aggressed AND there are no penalties for dying when aggressed in a PvP match...." AND all PvP must take place in a magical land of rainbows and snuggly teddy bears AND there must be unicorns! AND skittles!

Hee hee?

Again, that "gladiator" stuff is fine and dandy but you REALLY put a cap on potential epic-ness when you confine PvP to such an environment. Ask any of the "old timers" from World of Warcraft (to use a bad example) who enjoyed world PvP in zones such as, say Tauren Mill.

In conclusion I completely get that "controlled" PvP is pretty much the only way to do things with the way most MMOs are set up. Level based/gear based progression. BUT! if there were changes to the ruleset/mechanics made some of which have been detailed above by myself and others, then I'm sure a much more potentially enjoyable PvP MMO could be created.

Take care and really cool discussion!
Florida, USA
Current Project
Jesus is LORD!

#7 sunandshadow   Moderators   -  Reputation: 4916

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 02 December 2012 - 12:05 PM


An additional thing about PvP I was noticing today - I often win with a fairly bad performance (because my opponent somehow managed to screw up even worse) and lose with a near-perfect performance (when both of you perform very well, someone has to win, even if it's by only a few points or a few tenths of a second). That's not very psychologically satisfying.

Maybe that's because you're not psychologically (possibly even physiologically, assuming you're female?) compelled to the level of competitiveness that results in those VERY same outcomes feeling extremely satisfying. Especially the latter!

It's true that I'm not a very competitive person, I don't like anger or conflict and instinctively want to mediate it out of existence (make fighting people apologize to each other and be civil instead) and probably true that it has something to do with me being female. I've met some very competitive women and some men who are peacemakers, but both are probably minorities of their gender. I do like some kinds of PvP, so I consider my opinion relevant to the thread, but mainly I like it as "safe" activity that at the worst will empty my health and mana meters and put wear on my gear, but at the best will award some kind of token I can spend at a PvP rewards shop, or reward prize items that are the equivalent of monster drops. I'll avoid PvP if it is dangerous to people who don't take it seriously, because I know I'm not going to take it seriously.

Phone game idea available free to someone who will develop it (Alphadoku game - the only existing phone game of this type is both for windows phone only and awful. PM for details.)


I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me. I also love pet-breeding games.


#8 epicpunnum   Members   -  Reputation: 454

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 03 December 2012 - 08:23 AM

I believe strongly in the balance of PvP. Having unbalanced fights can easily discourage players and create a hostile environment within any given server (assuming it is taking place online). Recalling what I know of from PvP, there seem to be 4 models of varying degrees of balancing:
  • Derived from TF2: Any upgrades which players can get are trivial. In terms of DPS or effects, they are all balanced and only serve to provide different styles of play (or just laughs). Fights are determined partially by strategy, but largely by skill.
  • Derived from Runescape: Provide an area dedicated to PvP, that does not take away much from the experience. As you progress, there is a larger and larger range of levels that you are allowed to attack (eg: you are level 50, at tier 2, you can fight people in a 10-level range. Therefore your enemies can be lvl 40-60). As you change tiers, rewards and locations become more important/valuable.
  • Derived from shooters: You're put into a lobby, polled based on level. You can still be awful at the game, but just earned your level from tons of time playing. You unlock stronger weapons throughout your levels, but because everyone in the lobby SHOULD be the same level approximately, you have a chance. Prone to connections with incredibly OP players.
  • Derived from Minecraft: There can be encounters at any time. However, the chances of dying instantly are incredibly low. In most cases, there is no incentive to attack, and many will avoid it. There also may be servers that do not provide PvP because it is unnecessary for the game provided. However, PvP can be moderated, and if it causes a problem, the aggressor can be kicked.
As for PvE vs PvP, there are certainly many instances where you can get a rush. A large part of it is immersion. The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword actually was very successful in its immersion, and many times, during boss fights, I would actually panic because I would be going down and had to fight to survive. However, in many cases, the urgency is lost as much of the uncertainty of PvP is lost. PvE is entirely scripted, and designed to give you cues and weak points. In PvP, someone could just as easily come charging at you then turn off a cliff.

#9 ManuelMarino   Members   -  Reputation: 153

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 03 December 2012 - 10:37 AM

let's focus on roleplay games. of course, in shooters, people love to kill real players, and it's part of the shooters experience.

in roleplay games, it's a problem. I don't want to be a common citizen using a sword in a 32x32 battle and being killed most of the time. I want to feel being the hero.

Ok, maybe it's because you are "not good"? wrong. It's a statistical issue. Sooner or later you are killed and the more you play the more you are killed.

I want adventure, heroic adventure, but PvP makes the heroic into common harsh, rude and realistic warfare, and "realistic" doesn't go well with heroic.
Electronic, Hard House, Film Music

88 preview tracks to listen to online + artist forums

And my projects Vanethian, and X-tivity Factor

#10 powerneg   Members   -  Reputation: 1463

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 03 January 2013 - 01:24 AM

1) Yes, often i 'll have to respect that the player somehow managed to kill me that i had not foreseen. umm, what do you mean by monster ? does he use other attacks ? because that's what i will expect from any PvP-game, including shooters because they have multiple weapons and some are better with one weapon while others can do marvelous things with another(ok, this is a bit over-the-top, usually someone just sees you before you see him but still)

2)making PvP either something to be avoided or something that is made too easy.

3)A restart of the server set every now and then(not on demand off course :P )
although what sand-castle ? if i dont lose anything too valuable/annoying and/or have a fair chance on retribution...

4)Yes, just dying a lot doesn't  realy appeal to me.

5)Usually yes, they're clearly more skilled.
i remember when i played halo 3 on the hardest mode, and was failing, and i started to realize i was fighting a group of NPC's(multiple) who all had the same abilities as me, only much more health, and realized that even if i would beat them, it would only have to mean that they failed big-time skill-wise, so i stopped.

on a further note, has anyone here played league of legends ? (or dota)
It's how PvP in an RPG(the leveling-thingy, not the story-one) should be.
you first get skill matched, then you enter the arena and start leveling the champion you have chosen and buying him stuff.
(the skill-matching makes sure that everyone will win ~50% of his/her matches, and if anyone still grieves/whines you mute him.

I would love to see something similar in MMORPG's, a sort of pre-set dueling agreement, although there would probably have to be a game-enforced rule about how much playing time to level you get(i m talking about something that might last weeks, and it has to stay a game, not some time-consuming-i-gotta-be-better-no-matter-what)



#11 DtCarrot   Members   -  Reputation: 327

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:05 AM

I love playing PvP since it can provide me a temporary relief from the regular PvE, questing, grinding and raiding. Also, the game play will be more interesting as different players will have different play styles. Sometimes, I can make new friends and they may provide suggestions to improve my play style making me improve as a player whether I win or lose. However, it is irritating whenever there are whiners who get sore about losing, blaming it on the imbalance, equipment and condition(off form or whatsoever). They call you a noob. For victors, they insult you for being loser, sometimes when they outclass you in terms of skills despite them having lousier equipment, they may brag about their skills.

 

For me, I would like to see PvP with more variety to make it more interesting. This can be done through settings. For example, disabling potions or ultimate skills and the space of the battle arena. The arena can be extremely small with little rooms for maneuvering around or a large areas where it becomes a 'cat chasing mouse' secenerio. Also, you can play 2v2, 3v3 and so on which tests not only the individual skill but also how the team cooperate with each other. 

 

Sometimes, PvP may be a ground for grieving due to the disparity in raw stats as I have mentioned above. I think what can be done about that is to create two different modes, one being the normal PvP where the stats and skill matter and the balanced PvP where everyone is scaled down to a certain stats so it just requires skill. This way, the casual players can have fun playing on equal grounds while the hardcore players can grind and grind for better equipments and improve their skills to surpass other players. 



#12 Greatak   Members   -  Reputation: 120

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 04 January 2013 - 05:26 PM

Seems to me that there's an awful lot of gear-bashing going on here. These complaints about how fights ought to have pre-set gear to 'level the playing field' is a bit like taking away any classes special powers, or only lettings fights occur on flat terrain with no obstacles. Gearless combat isn't 'pure skill' because choosing and acquiring gear is its own skill. It should go without saying that special gear that is purchased or something like that isn't quite the same, but if everyone has the same capacity to acquire the gear, there's no reason to bash gear in terms of skill level. If you want to run naked into battle, that's your own choice. It doesn't mean the other person isn't fighting fair for having better armor. Appropriate balancing of gear is essential, but balanced does not mean having no advantages.

 

However, back to the topic, PVP is only marginally more satisfying to me merely from a challenge standpoint. Against other people, you're roughly on the same level, combat becomes a challenge. Usually, PVE is designed so that the player can win. Maybe not easily, but losing isn't often what games are designed to make us do. This is why PVP tends to be more thrilling, there's a challenge, a risk of losing and more often than not, you lose because you get beat, not just because you did something stupid.

 

PVP needs to be carefully designed though. I absolutely hate games with unexpected gameplay in that regard. Call of Duty is notorious for this. I expect some sort of military simulator and I get people sprinting around with overpowered shotguns and bladewitches. Win or lose, CoD never feels very satisfying because it's too jarring, I have to spend my time playing an entirely different game countering what I consider to be abuses of bugs. The combat experience of a game ought to feel like it fits with the rest of the experience. Halo is a little better at this. Still some weird, obnoxious tactics, but they fit more into the tone of the game. You're a super soldier, of course you could just jump onto the jet and hijack it. However, none of this is exclusive to PVP, a carefully balanced PVE experience, where enemies pose a real challenge can be equally satisfying, even if you can't abuse psychology to do so.

 

Personally, I prefer immersive environments. PVE is almost always immersive because the game gets total control over everything and I'm in the mindset of being there. PVP is almost never immersive because people care less about playing a game and more about flat out winning. This is where abuse of bugs and so forth comes in because they don't care if they're being a dumbass, they won. PVP is only preferable to me when it's light-hearted, pointless competition. If players don't care about the outcome, then it becomes more enjoyable because there's less... manhandling the engine to do odd, unexpected things, which I personally find to be the biggest killer among PVP experiences. However, a robust engine might be able to prevent that.



#13 powerneg   Members   -  Reputation: 1463

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:10 PM

@greatak, i'm curious, what kind of game-play do you consider to be abuse of bugs ?
(i m assuming the games you play aren't full of real bugs)



#14 Greatak   Members   -  Reputation: 120

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 04 January 2013 - 09:38 PM

Like I said, I consider things like bladewitches out of Call of Duty to be abuse of bugs. Especially in the case where a lot of them were using an actual bug when the care package thing let you run much faster. Or the fairly common FPS oversight to make shotguns perform like overpowered rifles. I'm using bug in a more generalized sense though of 'unexpected gameplay' rather than just the narrow game-breaking interpretation. I'm just personally strongly opposed to gimicky games where the experience feels, well, stupid. It's much more fun, in my opinion, when things happen differently every time rather than spamming the same trick over and over. Many RTS's are also guilty of these sorts of design oversights, where one or two factions have a vastly superior rush strategy that turns every game into the exact same rush, over and over. Such things make PVP into a boring experience, with all the same problems as AI enemies doing repetitive things.






Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS