I think Jotaf said it best. The problem lies in the way the rule system of pretty much every RPG has their span of levels set up.
IMO a skill based system would be much more realistic, and if the rule system took into account heavy penalties for multiple targets attacking you it would be nice, instead of a high level standing idle in the middle of a zone with 30 monsters swinging and missing him the whole time.
The Quest for the Perfect PvP+ System
Author
Ya I totally agree, although I think that a few key "uber characters" in an MMORPG universe can really have a positive effect on the game as a whole. If you follow the link at the top of this thread to "Skill and Attributes", there is such a system outlined there.
I like the "No-monsters" idea. It's very true that immediately after launch the game world would be unbelievably chaotic; history shows that all civilizations start in chaos. Eventually, though, if there were no monsters to kill and no rewards for PvP, people would realize that the only way to progress was to learn skills. For something like this to work, the game would need:
-An effective communication system. City of Heroes has the most effective communication I've ever seen in an MMORPG. Ever. If people can communicate without having to worry about clutter (a speech bubble does a lot to make people hate reading), they are more likely to listen. If more people listen, then more people will also talk. When people talk, people have ideas. And when people have ideas, things happen.
-A completely player-run economy. If there are no NPCs out there to distribute higher-level goods, the economy advances as the players advance. You could argue that people set extravagant prices for goods, but...then again, nevermind that argument.
-No monsters/reward for individual PvP. Take a look at Dark Age of Camelot's Realm v. Realm system; there was no looting, and it was completely optional, open PvP against people from different Realms. Even communication was limited to people from your own realm. If there's no looting, why did people do it? Not because it was a good source of experience -- PvE combat gave more. People played in RvR combat because it was FUN. You felt like you were helping your realm by controlling the outposts, and you could easily coordinate advanced tactical movements between people you may not have ever played with before. Also, the complete absence of monsters would leave people with more important things to focus on than combat: skills to help out the community.
-Player-built nations. If people are running economies, people are running communities. When they run communities, they build towns. Of course, towns evolve into cities, cities evolve into more cities, and enough cities with a central government will eventually become, more or less, a nation. People would need complete control over choosing architectural styles -- Ultima Online had a nice housing system, which could be expanded upon easily (I use the term "easily" very loosely).
-A lot of skills. A LOT of skills. A Tale in the Desert attempted to be entirely skill-based, but all of the skills involved crafting. Sciences and arts come to mind.
-Other stuff...that somebody else will think of.
L8.
-An effective communication system. City of Heroes has the most effective communication I've ever seen in an MMORPG. Ever. If people can communicate without having to worry about clutter (a speech bubble does a lot to make people hate reading), they are more likely to listen. If more people listen, then more people will also talk. When people talk, people have ideas. And when people have ideas, things happen.
-A completely player-run economy. If there are no NPCs out there to distribute higher-level goods, the economy advances as the players advance. You could argue that people set extravagant prices for goods, but...then again, nevermind that argument.
-No monsters/reward for individual PvP. Take a look at Dark Age of Camelot's Realm v. Realm system; there was no looting, and it was completely optional, open PvP against people from different Realms. Even communication was limited to people from your own realm. If there's no looting, why did people do it? Not because it was a good source of experience -- PvE combat gave more. People played in RvR combat because it was FUN. You felt like you were helping your realm by controlling the outposts, and you could easily coordinate advanced tactical movements between people you may not have ever played with before. Also, the complete absence of monsters would leave people with more important things to focus on than combat: skills to help out the community.
-Player-built nations. If people are running economies, people are running communities. When they run communities, they build towns. Of course, towns evolve into cities, cities evolve into more cities, and enough cities with a central government will eventually become, more or less, a nation. People would need complete control over choosing architectural styles -- Ultima Online had a nice housing system, which could be expanded upon easily (I use the term "easily" very loosely).
-A lot of skills. A LOT of skills. A Tale in the Desert attempted to be entirely skill-based, but all of the skills involved crafting. Sciences and arts come to mind.
-Other stuff...that somebody else will think of.
L8.
Author
Those are exactly the type of systems I'm talking about. More and more, players are complaining about a lack in "content" in MMORPGs. This refers not to the amount of different monsters or skills available, but rather the amount of different things a character can do, and the different ways in which a character can influence the game world. Even if monsters are still kept, these kind of PvP systems will still greatly enhance gameplay.
A good example of a PvP only MMORPG is Shattered Galaxy (a MMORTS/RPG actually). Its gameplay is dominated by warring factions and all-out PvP battles. Its a great example of the potential of PvP and how fun it can be. If you are interested in giving it a shot, the creator of the game offers free accounts, you can check it out at http://www.sgalaxy.com/. Also, if we compare the MMORPG genre to other onlines games, we can begin to see the differences that make PvP in MMORPG more controversial.
The biggest difference, and one factor we have not addressed yet in this thread, is the handling of death in an MMORPG environment. Obviously, if the penalty for death is zero, then most likely noone would have a problem with PvP. However, as designers we want to maintain a certain amount of realism in online worlds, and with no weight on death, there is also no weight on life. On the other hand, as Telastyn pointed out before, building a lasting character is a huge part of wanting to play an MMORPG, so if the penalty is too heavy then players are discouraged. The challenge is to create a balanced system where PvP is important but not all-pervading. To do this, a well-integrated death and character development system needs to be created and balanced, which I believe is really hard to do. In my next thread I'll be posting the system of death used in my design, but lets just discuss it a little more ahead of time!
What is the best balance for death? Is perma-death a good idea? Or perhaps no penalties at all? Is there a better system somewhere in the middle? What would be unique about such a middle system?
A good example of a PvP only MMORPG is Shattered Galaxy (a MMORTS/RPG actually). Its gameplay is dominated by warring factions and all-out PvP battles. Its a great example of the potential of PvP and how fun it can be. If you are interested in giving it a shot, the creator of the game offers free accounts, you can check it out at http://www.sgalaxy.com/. Also, if we compare the MMORPG genre to other onlines games, we can begin to see the differences that make PvP in MMORPG more controversial.
The biggest difference, and one factor we have not addressed yet in this thread, is the handling of death in an MMORPG environment. Obviously, if the penalty for death is zero, then most likely noone would have a problem with PvP. However, as designers we want to maintain a certain amount of realism in online worlds, and with no weight on death, there is also no weight on life. On the other hand, as Telastyn pointed out before, building a lasting character is a huge part of wanting to play an MMORPG, so if the penalty is too heavy then players are discouraged. The challenge is to create a balanced system where PvP is important but not all-pervading. To do this, a well-integrated death and character development system needs to be created and balanced, which I believe is really hard to do. In my next thread I'll be posting the system of death used in my design, but lets just discuss it a little more ahead of time!
What is the best balance for death? Is perma-death a good idea? Or perhaps no penalties at all? Is there a better system somewhere in the middle? What would be unique about such a middle system?
Warning: Long post ahead.
Disclaimer: The following is my opinion and should be taken as such. I'm not going to put IMHO after every sentence, but that's all it is.
One way to help with MMORPG's problems would be to adjust combat so that the number of players counts. For example, while and experienced warrior could easily kill a fresh recruit, several newbs could surround him and hack him from all sides. Levels would still be important, but they would build a character's skills (such as swordplay and magical skill) more than attributes (strength and magical power). A character at max level would be able to take on, say, four newbs (subject to testing and balancing) if he fights with skill instead of just hacking at them with impunity. One easy way to implement this would be to let a warrior only parry one blow at a time and not attack while doing that.
I, also, am developing a multiplayer (not MMO) RPG and I will try out this system. This requires getting rid of armor+1 then armor+2, though. One way armor could be represented more realistically is through several variables such as protection, encumberence, weight, and material quality. There would be no 'ultimate armor +1000' because it would be very heavy. A swordsmaster would prefer light, supple armor while a knight would want something heavier and stronger. Different weapons would have different sharpness, balance, weight, speed, etc. A player would have to make decisions about what to equip.
I'm also trying to get rid of the concept of MP and explain the 'magic' system more. Ether is a force that is everywhere, and everyone can sense and manipulate it to various degrees. Some develop these abilities while others do not. 'Spells' are the use of ether to affect the physical world. Other characters can attack a spell with ether, though, just as one sword can parry another. Characters' primary strength in ether lies in how fast they can draw it. They also can learn to sense it, hide their own, and use as little ether as possible. The better the character is at hiding ether and the less (s)he uses, the harder it is to detect. Also, although players have infinite ether to use, controlling it tires them much like physical work. As characters get more and more tired, they get worse and worse at fighting, putting forth less effort more slowly. Players' stamina returns as they rest, drink water (within reason), and relax. Ether is not limited to just destroying monsters or other players; it can be used to change items, lift objects, hover, heal characters, or even teleport. The art of healing is very limited, however. While almost anyone could heal a few cuts and bruises with enough effort, it takes a master to heal a gaping wound.
To implement this, more info would be needed about a character than their hit points. They could have wounds, or simply be physically traumatized or in intense pain. They may be burned or cold, among other things. I would keep track of separate wounds of different intensities with numerical values. While a novice healer could take care of hundreds of scratches (with enough effort), (s)he could not heal a huge burn or a severed limb.
Experience systems in traditional RPGs make no sense, as do classes. They can be eliminated, and have been in some cases, in modern RPGs. Characters could have physical attributes that change little over time. Attributes could go up in a logarmithic curve, so that they would have trouble being infinitely strong. Players' attributes would also atrophy (very slowly) over time. If you haven't walked in years because you hovered everywhere you will have trouble and get tired quickly when something stops you from hovering. Skills are things that are learned. They can be learned faster than physical abilities grow, but they are also forgotten faster. It is much easier to learn to ride a bike (or fight with a sword, as the case may be) the second time around. With this, classes would be unnecessary. A character could be very skilled at everything; it would take much more work than focusing on a few skills, however. Other characters would percieve the character based on what (s)he wears and his/her body language (I have no idea how to implement that besides text clues such as 'You see he handles his sword like he knows how to use it well', which players may not like being told.)
Hopefully 'Role-Playing' could be seen as more than just killing stuff in an RPG. I would like players to work together as much as possible and be in a 'clan' at all times. If players work together in groups it would make the game much more interesting. Some groups may get along in their lands while others may be at war. NPCs could also belong to groups and would probably obey better than regular players. There would be no automatic 'safe zones', however a neighboring faction would have a hard time invading a city with all its guards patrolling the streets. Players could choose a clan, which would probably be a city-state or something, and would belong to that clan. Most clans would protect their members, although some wouldn't care. Role-playing as a member of your clan would be strongly encouraged. Although the less mature players wouldn't like it, this is not a commercial project and a quality playerbase is more important to me than a large playerbase.
And then the hard one: death. Players will stop playing if their character dies forever, unless a reasonable alternative is given. On the other hand, it makes no sense to just give them a slap on the hand, take some experience, and send them on their way. Some possibilities are:
*Characters supernaturally appear in some starting location with some penalty (item loss, experience loss, etc.)
It just seems too stereotypical and doesn't make sense for me. If they are still alive, why would they be less skilled at swords? I don't like it.
*Characters can use ether to 'revive' them and restore them to life
It isn't a be-all end-all solution; it's too powerful and is just seen as a minor penalty. Maybe very powerful healers could use it at a great effort to get an important member back in the heat of battle without penalty, but another method is need if a clan member with that ability is not near or chooses not to use it.
*Characters exist in a mirror of their real world and death merely returns them to their real world
It could work if done right. Death could be a penalty because they could not help their team in the battle that was going on. They would perhaps lose what they were carrying/wearing (not that big of a deal because there is no Steelsword+1000 for them to lose) If their team wins the battle a friend could grab the player's equipment and give it back; the other team could grab it as a prize, although that couldn't be done instantly and someone would have to carry the extra weight.
*Permadeath, with some way that the old character is still useful: the player plays as the descendent of the old player and can call his/her ancestors in battle (or something)
Again, this could be implemented well or poorly. It could be useful or cheesy.
I'm not quite sure how to handle death yet; a combination of a few of these ideas would probably work best.
These are just a few of my ideas on RPG's. I don't know what others will think of them.
Disclaimer: The following is my opinion and should be taken as such. I'm not going to put IMHO after every sentence, but that's all it is.
One way to help with MMORPG's problems would be to adjust combat so that the number of players counts. For example, while and experienced warrior could easily kill a fresh recruit, several newbs could surround him and hack him from all sides. Levels would still be important, but they would build a character's skills (such as swordplay and magical skill) more than attributes (strength and magical power). A character at max level would be able to take on, say, four newbs (subject to testing and balancing) if he fights with skill instead of just hacking at them with impunity. One easy way to implement this would be to let a warrior only parry one blow at a time and not attack while doing that.
I, also, am developing a multiplayer (not MMO) RPG and I will try out this system. This requires getting rid of armor+1 then armor+2, though. One way armor could be represented more realistically is through several variables such as protection, encumberence, weight, and material quality. There would be no 'ultimate armor +1000' because it would be very heavy. A swordsmaster would prefer light, supple armor while a knight would want something heavier and stronger. Different weapons would have different sharpness, balance, weight, speed, etc. A player would have to make decisions about what to equip.
I'm also trying to get rid of the concept of MP and explain the 'magic' system more. Ether is a force that is everywhere, and everyone can sense and manipulate it to various degrees. Some develop these abilities while others do not. 'Spells' are the use of ether to affect the physical world. Other characters can attack a spell with ether, though, just as one sword can parry another. Characters' primary strength in ether lies in how fast they can draw it. They also can learn to sense it, hide their own, and use as little ether as possible. The better the character is at hiding ether and the less (s)he uses, the harder it is to detect. Also, although players have infinite ether to use, controlling it tires them much like physical work. As characters get more and more tired, they get worse and worse at fighting, putting forth less effort more slowly. Players' stamina returns as they rest, drink water (within reason), and relax. Ether is not limited to just destroying monsters or other players; it can be used to change items, lift objects, hover, heal characters, or even teleport. The art of healing is very limited, however. While almost anyone could heal a few cuts and bruises with enough effort, it takes a master to heal a gaping wound.
To implement this, more info would be needed about a character than their hit points. They could have wounds, or simply be physically traumatized or in intense pain. They may be burned or cold, among other things. I would keep track of separate wounds of different intensities with numerical values. While a novice healer could take care of hundreds of scratches (with enough effort), (s)he could not heal a huge burn or a severed limb.
Experience systems in traditional RPGs make no sense, as do classes. They can be eliminated, and have been in some cases, in modern RPGs. Characters could have physical attributes that change little over time. Attributes could go up in a logarmithic curve, so that they would have trouble being infinitely strong. Players' attributes would also atrophy (very slowly) over time. If you haven't walked in years because you hovered everywhere you will have trouble and get tired quickly when something stops you from hovering. Skills are things that are learned. They can be learned faster than physical abilities grow, but they are also forgotten faster. It is much easier to learn to ride a bike (or fight with a sword, as the case may be) the second time around. With this, classes would be unnecessary. A character could be very skilled at everything; it would take much more work than focusing on a few skills, however. Other characters would percieve the character based on what (s)he wears and his/her body language (I have no idea how to implement that besides text clues such as 'You see he handles his sword like he knows how to use it well', which players may not like being told.)
Hopefully 'Role-Playing' could be seen as more than just killing stuff in an RPG. I would like players to work together as much as possible and be in a 'clan' at all times. If players work together in groups it would make the game much more interesting. Some groups may get along in their lands while others may be at war. NPCs could also belong to groups and would probably obey better than regular players. There would be no automatic 'safe zones', however a neighboring faction would have a hard time invading a city with all its guards patrolling the streets. Players could choose a clan, which would probably be a city-state or something, and would belong to that clan. Most clans would protect their members, although some wouldn't care. Role-playing as a member of your clan would be strongly encouraged. Although the less mature players wouldn't like it, this is not a commercial project and a quality playerbase is more important to me than a large playerbase.
And then the hard one: death. Players will stop playing if their character dies forever, unless a reasonable alternative is given. On the other hand, it makes no sense to just give them a slap on the hand, take some experience, and send them on their way. Some possibilities are:
*Characters supernaturally appear in some starting location with some penalty (item loss, experience loss, etc.)
It just seems too stereotypical and doesn't make sense for me. If they are still alive, why would they be less skilled at swords? I don't like it.
*Characters can use ether to 'revive' them and restore them to life
It isn't a be-all end-all solution; it's too powerful and is just seen as a minor penalty. Maybe very powerful healers could use it at a great effort to get an important member back in the heat of battle without penalty, but another method is need if a clan member with that ability is not near or chooses not to use it.
*Characters exist in a mirror of their real world and death merely returns them to their real world
It could work if done right. Death could be a penalty because they could not help their team in the battle that was going on. They would perhaps lose what they were carrying/wearing (not that big of a deal because there is no Steelsword+1000 for them to lose) If their team wins the battle a friend could grab the player's equipment and give it back; the other team could grab it as a prize, although that couldn't be done instantly and someone would have to carry the extra weight.
*Permadeath, with some way that the old character is still useful: the player plays as the descendent of the old player and can call his/her ancestors in battle (or something)
Again, this could be implemented well or poorly. It could be useful or cheesy.
I'm not quite sure how to handle death yet; a combination of a few of these ideas would probably work best.
These are just a few of my ideas on RPG's. I don't know what others will think of them.
Quote:Original post by PinFX
I'm just trying to point out that "power-leveling" builds for certain characters become less desirable. For instance, lets create a hypothetical MMORPG situation where in a world there is monster X that grants Y amount of experience, which happens to be more than what monster Z grants. Let's say that this monster is especially weak to fire, and because of this a certain breed of "X-kiling Fire Mages" might be born, for the sole reason of leveling up faster. At the same time, players who don't use this build are at a disadvantage. This is a very specific example, and specialized character building pervades almost the entire MMORPG scene. What I'm saying is that a PvP+ system that is made together with a more universaly applicable combat system can in fact grant players more freedom in terms of character development as opposed to forcing them a certain way.
But that's an irrelevant conclusion - nothing you've said about PvP here directly relates to which monsters you kill for experience. I think you're missing a large part of your explanation.
Quote:Aren't all game systems created with the intention of forcing players to play a certain way? Do you think its possible to create a system that does not alienate a certain audience of players?
The important thing is the extent. All games exclude some people, but many MMORPGs accommodate people who don't want to have to compete against other players, and who don't want to take it into account at all times. Your system doesn't allow for such players.
Quote:Isn't it better to be aware of restrictions and to put down the right restrictions as opposed to simply lettings players do what they want?
I'm sure your system could yield a great game, but it wouldn't be 'the next step for MMORPGs'. It would be 'the next step for PvP MMORPGs'.
Quote:People might say that the flaws of certain MMORPGs are PvP+ systems that alienate certain types of players, but the fact is a huge audience enjoys PvP+ environments. I do not believe in this theory. Simply because existing communities have been divided into opposing camps of "carebears" and "RPK groups" does not mean that the mindset of players will always follow a one-sided stereotype. In the end, I believe PvP will become integrated to MMORPGs as a part of the game, not a certain feature that makes or breaks a game. Your opinion, Kylotan?
I don't agree. A lot of people want to play cooperatively. Yet the various psychological effects of the internet (removal of inhibitions through anonymity, the 'it's just a game' mindset, the lessened influence of punishments on a player compared to real life, and so on) mean that some otherwise friendly people turn into the equivalent of psychopaths on online games. You can't mix those two groups and expect both to keep paying that monthly subscription.
I'm one of the ones that believes a fully PVP+ MMO is possible to develop. In order for this to happen a few things need to be in place completely at the time of launch. To this end is the design we've strived towards with Ages of Athiria. (my.agesofathiria.com)
Clear definitions of what is considered griefing and what is considered acceptable PVP have to be laid out in a set of simple concise rules that the player can digest. These actions are griefing-PvP and these actions are consentual-PvP; there cannot be a grey line in the system. If this is not clear then expectations cannot be set.
The game needs to be able to track those rules and flag characters that are in violation of those rules. Alternately, the game should be able to prompt or warn a player when an action they are about to take could place them in violation of the rules.
Players need the ability to exact PERMANENT justice on a character that is found to be violation of said rules. Without knowing that I can completely remove the ability of my assailant to play the game, a PvE minded player will not play the game. It's even better if some sort of societal justice system can be brought to bear removing the direct action I need to take to enact justice. (Think guards of my city carrying out the justice so that I do not have to train my crafting skills away just to get revenge)
Tools need to be given to the players so that disputes can be resolved without running amok of the PvP rules. Consentual duels, war mechanism, guild training sessions...
Ages of Athiria addresses each of these issues and the result is something that we think all types of players will want to play. The key lies deep in the idea that sociology guides player communities in MMOs more than game mechanics. Game mechanics are there to provide tools to the players to build the society that they want to build. If we get it right, you'll have a completely safe world to adventure in without the need for artificial PvP switches and the like. Hopefully this is a game that PvPers and PvEers can share in without being at oposing ends of a religious war.
Kressilac
Clear definitions of what is considered griefing and what is considered acceptable PVP have to be laid out in a set of simple concise rules that the player can digest. These actions are griefing-PvP and these actions are consentual-PvP; there cannot be a grey line in the system. If this is not clear then expectations cannot be set.
The game needs to be able to track those rules and flag characters that are in violation of those rules. Alternately, the game should be able to prompt or warn a player when an action they are about to take could place them in violation of the rules.
Players need the ability to exact PERMANENT justice on a character that is found to be violation of said rules. Without knowing that I can completely remove the ability of my assailant to play the game, a PvE minded player will not play the game. It's even better if some sort of societal justice system can be brought to bear removing the direct action I need to take to enact justice. (Think guards of my city carrying out the justice so that I do not have to train my crafting skills away just to get revenge)
Tools need to be given to the players so that disputes can be resolved without running amok of the PvP rules. Consentual duels, war mechanism, guild training sessions...
Ages of Athiria addresses each of these issues and the result is something that we think all types of players will want to play. The key lies deep in the idea that sociology guides player communities in MMOs more than game mechanics. Game mechanics are there to provide tools to the players to build the society that they want to build. If we get it right, you'll have a completely safe world to adventure in without the need for artificial PvP switches and the like. Hopefully this is a game that PvPers and PvEers can share in without being at oposing ends of a religious war.
Kressilac
Quote:Original post by PinFX
Telastyn, you bring up a lot of good points and I think they are all valid concerns. However, the changes I'm proposing are pretty drastic, and they really do move around the fundamentals of MMORPG design. The issues you bring up may be applicable to existing MMOs, but not necessarily an MMORPG with the features I talked about above.
For instance, in your reply to pg3 assumes that 1) In the MMORPG will exist a very broad range in player power, 2) That a system preventing abuse must be direct and arbitrary and 3) The character development system in place is linear. You have to understand that I don't view any existing MMORPGS as good models for PvP+ environments, and the ideas I'm putting forth are based on a lot of other changes as well. Currently, the purpose behind PvP usually holds little or no meaning, because of the types of character development in place PvP becomes, as you said, a tool for "griefing".
Anyways, your main argument, that PvP takes away from the main draw of MMORPGs, is a very strong one. It is true that PvP can in fact stand in the path of a a player developing his character and enjoying the game. However, this is where I believe a truly great potential lies. A concept in life, and one that I think is largely ignored in MMORPGs, is that in order to gain something great, you must work hard, and sometimes sacrifice. With sacrifice, the reward becomes more valuable. In most MMORPGs, a certain amount of "work" is required, but what is not represented is the complex forms that work can take, and the non-linear nature of striving towards a goal. Developing a lasting character may be the main draw of an MMORPG, but that is only true because that lasting character was created from hours of work (usually "grinding"), and that hard work has authenticity because there are thousands of others who must do the same and want the same. When the nature of the "work" required to attain something becomes more ambiguous, then the nature of the reward also becomes more ambiguous but also much more powerful. That is where I believe the next step is, and I believe PvP can be a big part of it.
*snip* *snip*
Replying to only what was directed to me, as there's been many updates since my last reply, and keeping focused will prevent me from preaching too much. Nobody needs that :D
Regarding the assumptions.
1. Yes. I assume that levelling up will confer some sort of advantage. Even if it's non-linear, there's still a point where fights become un-winnable. The non-linearity only creates a larger "window" of close fights. Further, having such limited difference in levels creates very limited reward for playing the game. People like getting new spells, or more abilities. Getting a few more HP or a few percentage points per level [unless the levelling occurs at a ferocious pace...] isn't very rewarding.
2. Sort of. I simply do not believe non-direct systems are very effective or not open to abuse themselves. A playerbase policing themselves is of course the best method, but *very* unreliable. That sort of setup also tends to fail spectacularly. Either the playerbase tends to not PvP for fear of breaking some unwritten rule, or assholes control the police, ruining the game.
3. Oops already covered this in 1...
One other major assumption that I made which others kind of brought up:
Players fight 1v1.
In my experience, having anything else leads to packs of PKers picking off anyone that comes along. Players are forced into clans/tribes/guilds just to survive. Less choice means less game for players. (IMO of course. The added social aspects will make the game more fun for socialite sorts, but makes it so that people play less since they can only effectively play when their teammates are online.)
And yes, I've heard the more work means more reward argument before. I don't buy it for non-artistic endeavours (sp?). For things that can be qualitatively evaluated [money, character level, character kills, character skill levels, win-loss record] it doesn't work, especially with PvP.
With PvP, if I lose a fight, generally I lose something [gold, life, stuff, experience] and the victor gains something. (otherwise as I stated originally, PvP becomes a meaningless waste of time since there's no influence on the players). Thus for me to "catch up" to the victor I need to win another fight [or two, as usually I need to recover what was lost and then win again to get what the victor won]. I've just "worked" 2-3 times as much for the same qualitative reward. And your added ambiguity might eliminate the simple qualitative rewards, rendering this mostly moot, but I'm curious how PvP could even exist without qualitative win-loss...
Author
Quote:And your added ambiguity might eliminate the simple qualitative rewards, rendering this mostly moot, but I'm curious how PvP could even exist without qualitative win-loss...
Great question!!! (Although I think you got qualitative and quantitative backwards)
Let's quickly leave the MMORPG genre for a moment and look at some other online games. As an example let's take a game that most likely everyone here has played: Counter-Strike. The game under investigation has a very straight-forward way of showing the quantitive measurements for winning and losing: the scoreboard. Now, for a lot of players this is how far the game will go. These players will increase their personal skill to continue to better their own scores. However, a huge part of the Counter-Strike experience is to join a clan and play in clan battles, skirmishes or even compete in cyber athlete leagues. Groups of players will gather together to practice subtle yet highly impactful strategies as teams. Granted, they do this to win on a different level, but its still to win and gain a better score, but are the rewards for this kind of effort quantitive only?
I'm going to go ahead and give a personal example from a game that most people are probably not familiar with: the original Starsiege. I'm not talking about Tribes and infantry with jetpacks, I'm talking about a mech-warrior style multiplayer game that required players to be proficient with highly complex systems of vehicle building and piloting. As a player just entering the online gaming scene, I was extremely addicted and invested more hours than I probably should have in learning the the strengths and weaknesses of each mech type. Over time, my skills advanced and so did my position on the scoreboard. I became more involved in the community and was eventually recruited into a clan. Upon entering I was introduced for the first time to a player-managed ranked system and a type of strategy and play on a completely different level. Now it wasn't just about twitch skill and knowing what needed to be hit and how to hit it, but rather controlling locations, out-smarting the enemy and working together with your teammates. More time passed and the name of my clan became known throughout the community, our power unchallenged until another upstart clan challenged us with organization and skill that we had never gone up against before. We had some very serious practice sessions preparing for our match with that clan, and the battle when we crushed them decisively has stuck with me for years.
The whole point of that story is that the reward I received was more than the quantitive statement I was able to view on the final scoreboard. Learning the mechanics of a game and winning from knowledge is one thing, but using that knowledge against the knowledge of others and then stacking that knowledge up in layers is another thing. The greatest rewards in PvP gaming (and in my opinion all games in general) are qualitative because the nature of PvP is not quantitive at all.
The same can be said for MMORPGs, and this will better explain my argument about character development and monster exp in relation to PvP. When you battle against monsters, or "mobs" as they have become popularly known as, you are fighting a simple AI that can only interpret and use the rules of the game-world to a limited extent. This is also the complaint that many players have had against over-simplified monster AI systems such as "aggro". Sure, you could increase the complexity of monster AI, but why use Artificial Intelligence when you can use REAL intelligence? If PvP is acknowledged in a design from the start, then combat systems can be more easily implemented without a constant need for balancing between PvM and PvP combat and skills. With dominant PvP system in place, designers can then more easily balance skills and develop AI based on testing with players.
Take a look at current MMORPGs. In which MMORPG are monsters not the main pathway for character development? Developers are always concerned about how players can kill monsters, and how monsters can be more challenging. But in the end, monsters will always be AI using the rules of a game-world without any creativity. Monsters will always be artificial constructs incapable of reacting to the player like another player could. Why use monsters when you have players? There is a misconception out there that just because players are always competing that overall they cannot advance. That is not true, and there are plenty of ways a game can be balanced so that even though players are constantly fighting each other, they ALL progress. Take for instance the example of the game gunbound (www.gunbound.net), where the entire game is based off of player vs. player battles, but each player is also able to gain equipment over time from attaining resources from each battle (whether they win or lose).
This is the potential I see. However, as many have pointed out, to properly extract a fun experience for players from this potential, a lot of other things need to be in place. Among those things required is a quantitive character development system that acknowledges the qualitative efforts and rewards present in any game where players battle other players.
Oh my GOD my brain came out!!!!!!
Anyway, I had something to say, but halfway through I forgot what I was saying -- so I think I'll post it again tomorrow.
Anyway, I had something to say, but halfway through I forgot what I was saying -- so I think I'll post it again tomorrow.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
