Planetside 2

[Malakili]

If you don't get thrown a bone for losing, why participate? Especially when there's competition who do give out 2nd place prizes?

Because the game is worth playing for its own sake...hypothetically.  Seriously, why did anyone ever play any game before these progression treadmills caught on?  Because we actually enjoyed it!

That's all well and good until the people who win get rewarded with things that make them win more.

Yeah, thats fine.  Make victories strategic victories.  Maybe if you take some critical factory from the enemy your side will get some extra vehicles to spawn or something, but in the end each battle v. said vehicle is still the same as it was before.   Since I like citing WW2O, there are all sorts of towns that if you can take you get a really nice long term advantage for your side (supply lines, terrain advantage, or whatever) but it doesn't ruin your day to day experience of the game if you are on the losing side because the other team doesn't get free gear or whatever that makes you die horribly.  Not to mention their campaignn map just resets when one team wins (which I'm fine with in general for Planetside 2 or whatever hypothetically)

[Kitsune]

Yeah, hoo-rah, play hard or go home, second place is the first loser!  I find it deeply ironic that lots of gamers will make noises about how FPSs shouldn't coddle people, while Tribes, the most skill-demanding FPS I've ever seen, had virtually no success whatsoever with barren empty servers.  Sure, players will say that they want hard games where real men can chew nails and spit bullets, but the market is clearly dictating a more Hello Kitty-esque direction.

[Malakili]

Yeah, hoo-rah, play hard or go home, second place is the first loser!  I find it deeply ironic that lots of gamers will make noises about how FPSs shouldn't coddle people, while Tribes, the most skill-demanding FPS I've ever seen, had virtually no success whatsoever with barren empty servers.  Sure, players will say that they want hard games where real men can chew nails and spit bullets, but the market is clearly dictating a more Hello Kitty-esque direction.

It seems like we are having two parallel discussions at this point in this thread.

1)   Skill Based v. Accessible - Should the game be easy to learn, hard to learn.  How much should player skill matter.  How much should a winner be rewarded as opposed to the loser.

On the skill mattering front, I really want to know what a compelling PvP based game would be that DOESN'T have a skill based element?  Remember when WoW battlegrounds were owned hardcore by raiders because thats where the epic gear was.  Not to mention at that point people generally said the biggest problem with raiding was the TIME required, not the skill.  My point is, you go the other way, and its far worse.   I think skill has to matter.   On the reward front, I think the answer is just that there shouldn't really be rewards for either side, winners or losers, at least in the normal MMO experience/loot/numbers going up in some column somewhere.   If the game is so terrible to you that if you lose you aren't willing to keep playing unless the game gives you a new gun or some shit, just play something different.


2)  Should the game be fair - Should the game force even teams in terms of numbers and equipment, should it be a free for all where people who have the ability to organize 100 people are going to win all the time, whatever.

This seems basically totally separate from the first point to me.  Something like Starcraft, or Counter-Strike, or some other competitive game needs to be fair.  However, these aren't competitive games in the sense of sport.  These games are about *conflict* not *competition*.    Large scale conflict at that, I think asymmetry is one of the more important parts of replicating a war scenario in a game like Planetside.  I am not at all against some kind of mechanic that requires some sort of strategic advantage so that you can't just go bring 1000 people to the fight and win, or at least mitigates the effect of population imbalance.  Examples would be: WW2O supply lines and brigades which dictate how many units are available to spawn in and from where.  Controlling more adjacent towns lets you attack from more sides, bring in more brigades to reinforce, and thus sustain your attack longer.  Therefore, you have to actually play your strategic cards right to get the best advantage from a population imbalance, where as a lower pop side might be able to force you into one long battle so that you can't make use of your population imbalance (and in fact this is a common tactic when one side in low population in WW2O, get your opponent mired in a long battle in a front where they don't have the strategic advantage, so you mitigate their advantage the best you can).


I guess my point is, I feel like these two things are getting blurred.  For some reason one side is very "hardcore pvp/skill based/unfair" the other side is "casual,accessible, fair"   I actually think that its not so simple, and I'd go as far as to say that hardcore PvP/competition is actually much more "skill based/fair" and that the "unfair" is almost the entire point of a large scale MMOFPS.  In fact, some of my most epic moments in an MMOFPS have arisen from the fact that the game wasn't fair.  I recall holding out in a bunker for a solid 30 minutes with just a few squad mates due to some good shooting and a lot of luck before we were finally overrun.  We were hopelessly outnumbered in that fight, bound to lose, but we held out as long as we could, bought our side a little extra time to set up defenses elsewhere, and had a blast doing it.   On the other side of the coin, I've had a lot fun riding in a transport truck through the enemies factory towns on the last day of a campaign that we were about to win and was all but formally wrapped up, it was a kind of victory lap and simply wouldn't be possible in a totally "fair" situation.

[01101010]

"If I don't get a god damn trophy, I am taking my ball and going home"  

[Ratman_tf]

If you don't get thrown a bone for losing, why participate? Especially when there's competition who do give out 2nd place prizes?

Because the game is worth playing for its own sake...hypothetically.  Seriously, why did anyone ever play any game before these progression treadmills caught on?  Because we actually enjoyed it!

That's all well and good until the people who win get rewarded with things that make them win more.

Bazingo. Either have rewards for all, or none.

[Malakili]

If you don't get thrown a bone for losing, why participate? Especially when there's competition who do give out 2nd place prizes?

Because the game is worth playing for its own sake...hypothetically.  Seriously, why did anyone ever play any game before these progression treadmills caught on?  Because we actually enjoyed it!

That's all well and good until the people who win get rewarded with things that make them win more.

Bazingo. Either have rewards for all, or none.

Well, I am basically arguing for none, although a strategic victory gives you...a strategic advantage/"reward" and you can't really get around that if you game has a strategic element.

[Typhon]

I think it needs to be more complicated than "everyone wins!" because that will turn off folks that want the victory to have more meaning than just, "we win! ... ok, next game".  I strongly agree that giving winners rewards that make it easier for them to continue winning is bad game design.

I think there needs to be a division between faction success and player success. A faction could be a Shadowbane city-state, or a DAOC faction.

I think faction success should make it harder to continue winning.  Example: The more land a faction holds, the harder it is to keep that land. 

I think if there is some sort of progression, player participation should be rewarded regardless of win/loss.

I think winning should be rewarded with "bragging rights" style rewards.

I wouldn't reject out of hand playing a game where losing might cost you your "bragging rights" rewards if you lose too much.

I think there is a way within all of the above, to encourage teams to be "the right size" rather than "big as big as possible".  Maybe your progression and "bragging rights" rewards are tied to your faction size - so the pool of winnings are divided evenly amongst all members.

[Mrbloodworth]

When did PvP become about making sure no one is injured or everyone is guaranteed to advance?

When developers decided that getting a regular pay cheque was more important than theorycrafting.

I typed out, "when development houses desire for continued existence crushed the fantasy that was 'The Vision'", but decided that MrBW was just trolling.

lillbit.

[Nebu]

Well, I am basically arguing for none, although a strategic victory gives you...a strategic advantage/"reward" and you can't really get around that if you game has a strategic element.

I see the merit in this, but having played DAoC for years also see the potential for trouble.  Rewarding the winner makes the winner stronger in all cases.  It doesn't matter whether you reward the individual or the team. 

I think a better system is to reward the winner of a pvp encounter with something that won't imbalance future encounters.  Give them abilities that enhance combat options, give them resources, give them cash, give them titles, give them trinkets, give them appearance clothing... you get the idea. 

[Malakili]

Well, I am basically arguing for none, although a strategic victory gives you...a strategic advantage/"reward" and you can't really get around that if you game has a strategic element.

I see the merit in this, but having played DAoC for years also see the potential for trouble.  Rewarding the winner makes the winner stronger in all cases.  It doesn't matter whether you reward the individual or the team.  

I think a better system is to reward the winner of a pvp encounter with something that won't imbalance future encounters.  Give them abilities that enhance combat options, give them resources, give them cash, give them titles, give them trinkets, give them appearance clothing... you get the idea.  

How do you do that and actually keep an open world PvP game? (maybe you don't).  If someone takes Fortress X because Fortress X gives you a good staging area for attacks on 3 different towns, and now the opponent has to split their forces to defend 3 possible attacks thats a "reward" for capturing fortress X, even though the game literally gave the team nothing for taking it over.  I think that is how it should work.  Anyone says "Hey guys we took the fortress, everyone get your snazzy new purple camo pants from the chest in the middle" and I'm already unsubscribed because thats just one step away from "lets trade the fortress back and forth with the other team so we can get the ENTIRE purple camo set!"

[Paelos]

In war, the winners do get the advantages. You can't program against that logical truth simply because you are trying to run a game.

[Nebu]

Malakili, I agree with you.  The problem that I see (a big one at that) is that you need some sort of reward system that demonstrates character progression in order to justify a subscription fee.  It's either that or you need to add content at an accelerated rate.  

The classic MMO model provides access to a "more time = greater power" model.  WoW has it, EvE has it, and every other successful subscription model game has it.  I think the key to success with PS2 is to provide both individual and group incentives for players to keep logging on without giving them so large an edge that it generates a dominant senior player population.  

Without this kind of incentive, PS2 will be little more than a large scale FPS battlefield set in the future.  That's all fine and good if you're happy with being a niche game.  I doubt that they are shooting for ~100k subs.  I'd bet they want more.

In war, the winners do get the advantages. You can't program against that logical truth simply because you are trying to run a game.

When you're trying to pay the bills, I think you have to mess with logical convention a bit.  In an FPS, most players will lose more than they win.  If they get discouraged, you money leaves with them.

[Paelos]

When you're trying to pay the bills, I think you have to mess with logical convention a bit.  In an FPS, most players will lose more than they win.  If they get discouraged, you money leaves with them.

Sure, but the only logical end result of leveling the field would be to punish the winners. Unless you could figure out a way to tie a handicap to a pyschological win, or a tangible increase, then you have a problem. In the worst case, you'd have two groups trying to out-lose each other.

[Nebu]

One way to handle it is as Malakili describes.  Turn the game into a war of attrition.  Wins force you to defend larger and larger areas.  Eventually the winners get spread so thin that breaking their lines become possible.  In this way, the losers will "win" enough battles that it will take them longer to be discouraged.  Ironing out the details of the process is where the difficulty comes.  Perhaps class number limitations, vehicle limitations, etc could help keep the balance of power in flux.  Of course, balancing the sides from the start would be a huge improvement from PS as well. 

[Malakili]

Malakili, I agree with you.  The problem that I see (a big one at that) is that you need some sort of reward system that demonstrates character progression in order to justify a subscription fee.  It's either that or you need to add content at an accelerated rate.  

The classic MMO model provides access to a "more time = greater power" model.

I definitely understand this, but for me the reason to pay for an MMO isn't the progression (I can get probably the best progression meta game out there STILL by playing Diablo 2 in my opinion) at the character level, but rather at the world level.  That big persistent world to fight/play in is what I like.  For example, the fact that I can go to www.lagus.org/webmap and check out the WW2O campaign status is the kind of thing that makes a monthly fee worth it. (Not the webmap itself, but the fact that such a webmap is worth having).

[Nebu]

I'm with you.  We're a minority.  That being the case, there are no money hats to be made making a game that pleases us. 

I frequent these and other gaming sites with the hope that some indie house will develop a niche game like WWIIOL done better.  Barring that, I expect to see nothing more than large developers continue to make games to attract the masses.  Financially, I can't blame them.

[UnsGub]

Turn the game into a war of attrition.  Wins force you to defend larger and larger areas.  Eventually the winners get spread so thin that breaking their lines become possible.

Eve and Planetside already so this.  Even some maps in FPS games do this well.  This works well in my opinion.

[Typhon]

I definitely understand this, but for me the reason to pay for an MMO isn't the progression (I can get probably the best progression meta game out there STILL by playing Diablo 2 in my opinion) at the character level, but rather at the world level.  That big persistent world to fight/play in is what I like.  For example, the fact that I can go to www.lagus.org/webmap and check out the WW2O campaign status is the kind of thing that makes a monthly fee worth it. (Not the webmap itself, but the fact that such a webmap is worth having).

I don't think either of you (Malakili and Nebu) are in the minority, I think there are many people (me included) that would like a persistent state war game (FPS, overhead, etc).

The problem is that every time it's been tried before there were too many unresolved issues that ended up making the game implode - 2am pushes against no opposition or having to schedule a battle with the opposition, population imbalance, making land/cities/castles worth taking and defending but not giving the owner an increasing advantage in the war.

I have no interest in playing a game that hasn't learned from mistakes of the past or games that require a large investment in time (I'm simply not able to do that).  I think the developer that can accommodate a persistent state map while allowing folks to log in and participate in the fray without having to dedicate >20 hours/week to the game will do well.

[Malakili]

I think the developer that can accommodate a persistent state map while allowing folks to log in and participate in the fray without having to dedicate >20 hours/week to the game will do well.

I think the tough part is that SOMEONE needs to be spending a ton of time in the game to make it work for everyone else.   

[Typhon]

And how do you reward the people spending all that time without turning off the folks that aren't spending a ton of time in the game (or vice-versa)?  As someone that can not a great deal of time playing games (nor really wants to spend), I can't think of a solution that doesn't suck for one type or the other and spiral into another "casuals versus hardcore" pissing contest.

I rather have AI controlled factions playing something like a turn-based game against each other and the players (and player guilds) are conscripts/mercs that the AI contract as part of the number of 'moves' the AI can make per turn.

I was hoping that WoW battlegrounds were going to be RTS version of that.  The AI would control the serfs and cannon fodder and give orders to the human players (who would be the hero-class units).  It would all play out like a multi-player RTS game.  Boy was I disappointed.

[DayDream]

Eve also has the aspect of accumulated advantage for the winners.  But I don't think it's a problem in that game, unlike other games.  I think a lot of the reason it isn't is the composition of two opposing sides is not static, in Eve.  People switch sides frequently, for reasons both in and out of game, and things like accumulated advantage, or disadvantage, are dispersed.

In the discussion I'm seeing here, the assumption being made is that a player's allegiance to their side is absolute.  I think taking that requirement out, and instead letting players be more mercenary in their support, is an option to consider.

One puzzle about a free allegiance world is how conflict is driven.  Eve China apparently had one monolithic powerblock, and effectively no warring factions.  Eve original does not have that, and the difference between the two may be illuminating.

[Malakili]

And how do you reward the people spending all that time without turning off the folks that aren't spending a ton of time in the game (or vice-versa)? 

By...removing progression from the game.  In WW2O those people who spend all the time are a very select group (that changes over time) of players that are promoted to High Command and run the strategic side of the game for their side.  They basically make everything  "go" but in the end nothing they do matters unless their are boots on the ground making stuff happen.  If you have 3 hours a week to play, you can jump in, ask where you are needed, and spawn in, no fuss no muss. 

Again, aside from "successful MMOs have progression" is there any reason to have it?   Does it add anything to the game? 

[LK]

The reason there is progression is because players want it. I understand the ideal that it isn't *necessary* to the game, but games are made to make money, especially MMOs, not for the art of it, and players love to have some identifiable source of advancement to add value to their time and give them a sense of worth.

[Typhon]

I prefer to play games with some sort of progression.  I understand that it's not actual progression, that it's just an illusion, but it still makes the game seem deeper.  I don't even really think that it would necessarily have to be tied to combat.  Maybe my social standing within the game was increasing, rather than my combat abilities.

The later COD games are more interesting because of the progression.  The last UT wasn't as interesting because it didn't have it.

[LK]

Modern Warfare #1 set a new standard in a good progression system. Like entertainment crack!

[Ratman_tf]

In war, the winners do get the advantages. You can't program against that logical truth simply because you are trying to run a game.

To my mind, the answer is to reward the losers so that the power-gap becomes smaller. If, to put some completely arbitrary numbers to it, taking a Keep gives the winning team +100, and losing the keep gives you +99, then the winning team is only 1 out of 100 ahead. Not so bad. If taking the Keep gives the winning team +100, and nothing but a teabagging for the losers, then the losers are 100 behind.

I'm not gonna pretend that making specifics from an abstract like that is easy, but I think the idea is sound.

[LK]

It is a central tenet of gaming that, when you start to play, things are fair for you and everyone else at the start of the game, and everything that comes after that is a consequence of your decisions or chance or whatever factors affect the flow of the game, *until the game ends.* The game *needs* to end at some point to reset the fairness.

"Winners" and "losers" are only determined *after the game has been played.* If you start a game already a winner or a loser, or at a severe advantage / disadvantage you had no control or influence on... how is that fair?

Example of a good system: EVE Online's High-Sec space helps mitigate the open-PvP nature of the rest of the game. You have someplace you can go where you are able to enter the more hazardous, winner-takes-all, fairness-not-guaranteed environment of 0.0... on your terms.

This is the central problem of an open-PvP world. Fuck, it's why I stopped playing Ultima Online. Winners LOVED Ultima Online. Losers hated it. But you know what Origin loved? Players paying a subscription fee regardless of status. The only way you get that is by being fair to all your customers.

WoW does this *in spades*: dungeons, raids, battlegrounds, arenas. You can start at an advantage or disadvantage but the game does the best job possible to make it fair for you. At the very least fairness is guaranteed (or attempted in the design - Alterac Valley and other non-mirrored environments) from non-player variables, such as environment, start position, mob positions, etc.

[Kageru]

WoW also resets the game each expansion, which helps provide a cap on power differentials.

I'm increasingly of the mindset that it is impossible to have a non-niche open world persistent PvP game. There needs to be progression to keep people playing and paying. But given the lack of control over conflict, and the human ability to game any automated controls, power will inevitably flow to those who are willing to invest scary amounts of time, often at times chosen by the opponent and thus requiring some RL sacrifices, and thus freeze out the majority of the player-base.

Battlefields you can balance. Numbers and even gear / skill can be arranged to be equal and the results of many smaller conflicts fed back into some meta-strategy layer (the world of tanks and global agenda model). It also allows solutions for the problems of time-zone differences and zerg / server overloading to be formulated. You do lose the immediacy of a epic scale battle, but it's likely to be the more popular game.

Example of a good system: EVE Online's High-Sec space helps mitigate the open-PvP nature of the rest of the game. You have someplace you can go where you are able to enter the more hazardous, winner-takes-all, fairness-not-guaranteed environment of 0.0... on your terms.

No, Eve is pretty much broken as well. When the dominant determiner of strategic power becomes a 12 billion+ Isk ship, piloted by an alt with 2+ years of continuous subscription, power will naturally flow towards those holding lucrative space or already flush with such things. The possibility of a null-sec power who has lost that capability making a come-back, or a new power emerging, becomes increasingly marginal.

[LK]

WoW also resets the game each expansion, which helps provide a cap on power differentials.

...

No, Eve is pretty much broken as well. When the dominant determiner of strategic power becomes a 12 billion+ Isk ship, piloted by an alt with 2+ years of continuous subscription, power will naturally flow towards those holding lucrative space or already flush with such things. The possibility of a null-sec power who has lost that capability making a come-back, or a new power emerging, becomes increasingly marginal.

Good point on the first.

On the second, I'm confused. My point was that 0.0 is unfair, and that it is, ultimately, the player's choice to enter back into that unfair environment. But there is still some place where they can login and the conditions remain relatively stable and consistent from the last time they logged out, where no such guarantee is made in 0.0.

There might be details I'm missing, but I'm speaking to the concept rather than the exact implementation. High-Sec to 0.0 would be similar to, say, a WoW PvE zone with static merchants and consensual PvP to a perpetual battleground where territory is controlled by guilds. Not an exact comparison... but do you understand what I'm saying? UO might've been a better comparison: PvE vs. No Man's?

[Malakili]

I prefer to play games with some sort of progression.  I understand that it's not actual progression, that it's just an illusion, but it still makes the game seem deeper.  I don't even really think that it would necessarily have to be tied to combat.  Maybe my social standing within the game was increasing, rather than my combat abilities.

The later COD games are more interesting because of the progression.  The last UT wasn't as interesting because it didn't have it.

See, I pretty much am exactly the opposite of this.  COD Black Ops for instance, which I like from a mechanics stand point has an absolutely pointless progression system that acts as a cock block until you play an arbitrary amount.   There is no reason not to just allow people to play the game with all weapons available right from the beginning.   If you seriously feel like the game is any deeper because it makes you collect COD bucks before you can use a weapon, we are different on a fundamental and irreconcilable level.

Let me be clear that I'm ok with games that have progression, like RPGs.   But when you are tacking on progression because a bunch of rats like to press the XP gain lever over and over again, I start to develop a twitch in my eye brought upon from trying to control my rage.

[LK]

Let me be clear that I'm ok with games that have progression, like RPGs.   But when you are tacking on progression because a bunch of rats like to press the XP gain lever over and over again, I start to develop a twitch in my eye brought upon from trying to control my rage.

Ok, so your point is that you are not a part of the majority, a majority that, as one possibility, wants to spend their free time shutting their brains off from the stress and rigors that dominant the rest of their lives because being good at a video game isn't that important to them.

Let me ask: Is the point of a video game to entertain?

[LK]

I'm trying to make a point with Malakili, Nebu.

[Nebu]

I'm trying to make a point with Malakili, Nebu.

Post deleted.  My bad. 

[Kageru]

On the second, I'm confused. My point was that 0.0 is unfair, and that it is, ultimately, the player's choice to enter back into that unfair environment. But there is still some place where they can login and the conditions remain relatively stable and consistent from the last time they logged out, where no such guarantee is made in 0.0.

I think the difference is you were talking about it as a safe-zone (you can avoid getting beaten) and I was more thinking of it as a place from which you can get back into the game. In Eve empire is a safe zone, and provides the bulk of their subscriptions I believe, but as a platform to become a competitor in null-sec not so much because the established null-sec powers (and to a lesser extent players) are reaping the reward for winning and investing (some of it) in stupid numbers of excessively large ships. So while a player still has some options because they can join established alliances the null sec space narrows as a defeated competitor is unlikely to make a comeback... barring perhaps internal rot on their part.

So it was probably my fault in not making it clear I was talking about alliances (and players to a lesser extent in terms of the expectations of what they personally can provide).

[LK]

I see what you mean. A singular power could, theoretically, take over all of the null-sec space with enough people, and the only way to break that is if there is if a faction splinters and goes to war with each other. But all the experience and assets are being funneled into the big boys.

If someone "wins"... would they reset the game? Or does it become EVE Online: My Life In The Empire? I couldn't tell how possible it would be for an effective rebellion to form and exist with their system of mechanics.