The Competitive Illusion of Crushing: War and the MMOG

[HaemishM]

Read2Crush!

[Samwise]

I'm trying to picture how a massively multiplayer football game would work...

[sidereal]

I'm trying to picture how a massively multiplayer football game would work...

Somewhat like http://www.ultimatebaseballonline.com/">this?

Personally, I think that would be fantastic.  Even better than baseball.  It'd be fun to roll up a fatty Offensive Tackle or a speedy wideout depending on your mood.  Something like Blood Bowl.

[Margalis]

Not only do I agree, I was thinking of writing up something similar sometime tomorrow.

I would not think of a sport like football per se, but more just an organized conflict. You have a large area, up to 30 people from each team enter, last team with a man standing wins...something like that.

You can have 1 on 1 tournaments that are easy to work into the game fiction. And you can have doubles tournaments, guild-level tournaments, etc.

To me that sounds like a fantastic endgame. It lasts a long time without a lot of development costs. There are plenty of games that last for years with very little content because of their competitive aspects.

[AcidCat]

"The sports model, using instancing and scheduled events, removes the ability to zerg, transforming the competition into what is supposed to be a fair, balanced fight. Barring luck, the match comes down to player or team skills, not time spent in game or numbers."

What you're describing, would no doubt appeal to many players. After all, most competitive games start with an even playing field. In a round of Quake the difference is not in the amount of time the avatar has been played, but the skill of the user behind it.

But I don't want MMORPG combat to be like this. Because the basis of the game is time spent, is numbers, I want the PvP to reflect this basic mechanic as well, not be some kind of game-within-a-game. What I look for in a MMORPG is a gameplay experience in a virtual world, and if it involves PvP, I do want the war, not the structured, even-field jousting tournament.

I'm no catass, far from it, so often I'll be the one crushed under the boot, or running away or hiding - but I have no problem with that as I see it as part of the world dynamic - there are powerful creatures out there that could snuff me out in a moment. Some of them are mobs, I can predictably avoid those - some of them are human controlled with the initiative to seek me out - I like that, and I think it adds to the immersive nature of the game. But I think the key is that there not be penalties for PvP death, which is why WoW is working out for me so far.

[HaemishM]

Because the basis of the game is time spent

That's a different article, but that is one of the main problems with MMOG PVP as it is. Time spent is not a good qualifier for power in-game. It turns games into "only the hardcore survive," in some kind of Darwinian Lord of the Flies scenario. You won't hit a mass market target with a game like that.

[Fargull]

Yes, Yes, Yes.

Think Rollarball would be a great spotlight for this kind of affair.

[Dark Vengeance]

So again, the argument that consentual duels are superior to open PvP. Just, in this case, using a "team deathmatch" option and instancing.

It still fails to address one key point, and it's not a small one. And it applies whether you're roleplaying or just powergaming.

That point is: Words can be weapons.

Now as much as we all cherish the "plays well with others" trait of being the bigger man and walking away when insulted, these situations are conflicts that need resolution.

People forget that combat is a means to resolve conflict, but is not the SOURCE of conflict.

You want to even it out so that it's a sport, and nobody loses anything? That's all well and good in the 'I just got ganked for my phat lewtz' scenario....but in the 'this guy is a kill stealing bastard that called my mom a whore' scenario, it means that the other guy can refuse to fight....or he can go ahead and accept your challenge, knowing that he has nothing to lose, and can add fuel to the fire by beating you.

Also, and I hate to be the one to point this out....but most Madden players don't play online. Quite a few don't even play much multiplayer at all. And I'll wager that a good chunk of Madden players don't regularly play at a level where they have a hard time winning....they instead play at a low enough level that they can be the league MVP, make the playoffs and win the Super Bowl.

By the way, have you played many games of Madden online against the teeming masses? Smack talk, cheating, cheap tactics, quitters, whiners, and all sorts of issues abound. People complain that you are using a better team, or that they lagged, or that you have a player that is rated unfairly high, or that either you must be using a special controller, or that their controller is mysteriously not responding (the 'you've got the good controller' argument goes back to at least the Atari 2600). And this is a consentual, mutually agreed upon contest, based on a sport with both competitors on a relatively level playing field.

Competitive people, by and large, are poor losers. And yes, many are poor winners as well.

With all due respect to a well-written piece, Haemish, I don't see how your suggestions remedy poor sportsmanship among the contestants.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[HaemishM]

Nothing remedies poor sportsmanship, you are correct. However, while developers of MMOG's can be mini-deities, they can be policemen, they cannot be nannies. No game mechanic is EVER going to teach good sportsmanship. I know exactly the type of bullshit you describe with online sports games, even though I play ESPN instead of Madden. Yes, it truly is the same manner of bullshit as in MMOG's. It seems there are really very few good sports.

That's a societal issue. That's down to good parenting, and good lessons from authority figures at an early age. You are not going to solve that with game mechanics. EVER. Because the problem of "words being weapons" is not something that can be solved by game mechanics, not even in games like DAoC where you can't smack talk your opponent. And the more you try to force sportsmanship (restricting communication, making avatars automatically bow to the loser when they win, etc.), the less it will mean a damn. There is no panacea for good sportsmanship, nor for accepting insults, because all throughout history, wars have been started for less than the shit we call each other on these boards.

Once again, the players fuck up any good game better than most devs ever could.

[Margalis]

People forget that combat is a means to resolve conflict, but is not the SOURCE of conflict.

You want to even it out so that it's a sport, and nobody loses anything? That's all well and good in the 'I just got ganked for my phat lewtz' scenario....but in the 'this guy is a kill stealing bastard that called my mom a whore' scenario, it means that the other guy can refuse to fight....or he can go ahead and accept your challenge, knowing that he has nothing to lose, and can add fuel to the fire by beating you.

You aren't describing actual MMORPGs at all. Combat is not a means to an end, it IS an end in itself. Resolving conflict has nothing to do with it. For every guy who attacks someone to resolve a conflict, there were 100 guys who attacked someone just cause they like to do that.

I imagine that allowing 1v1 WoW style duels would get old fast. Something much more interesting would be tournaments and various competitions, group related conflicts, etc

[Viin]

Survey says.... levels = bad pvp.

I don't think you have to look any further than Counter Strike or Quake or Tribes to find a good example of how PvP should be handled.

Make the field level.
Make the challenges/battles last a

finite predefined time.
Make goals for each side.
Make the goals affect the overall game. (If your side wins, that means.. what?)
Make everything balance with everything else.
Maybe even make the whole game finite. Start with a fresh board after the Axis win.[/list:u]

Drop levels, drop stats that change, drop any advantage not controlled by the player's skill.

Allow the player to be whatever he wants to be. (Example: counterstrike has equipment. What kind of equipment you have dictates (generally) the style you will play - snipers are not storming buildings). At the same time, no one character with the same "kit" should have any advantage over another.

Advancement comes from leadership possibilities, access to more weapons/kits, access to more advanced conflicts.

RPG's are all good and fun, but PvP does not work well unless it's an even field. Guild Wars gets away with it because level difference is less pronounced and arena's keep like-levels together.

Aside from the above, the key issue Haemish brings up is that there is no end. No one is ever declared the winner. No one has to chance to make a comeback. MMO devs/publishers are scared to ever have the game end.. won't they lose customers? Probably, since time = power. CounterStrike restarts a game every 10-30 minutes; yet no one quits because of it. Skill = power. Knowledge = tactics.

Anyways, good post Haemish.

[Dark Vengeance]

You aren't describing actual MMORPGs at all. Combat is not a means to an end, it IS an end in itself. Resolving conflict has nothing to do with it. For every guy who attacks someone to resolve a conflict, there were 100 guys who attacked someone just cause they like to do that.

The guy who attacks people just for the fuck of it has a motive as well.

Maybe he is PKing for fat lewtz. Maybe he is griefing. Maybe he is masturbating furiously because he finds the combat animations erotic. In any case, he has set himself in conflict with the gameworld. Combat is just a means for him to reach an end.

Or perhaps you mean consentual PvPers? Isn't the conflict there about becoming the best PvPer in the game, or proving that you are a better PvPer than someone else? Sure it is...combat is just a means of resolving that conflict. The same conflict exists if you take two blacksmiths and have them race to build the most exceptional platemail sets in a 10 minute span. It's just a different means to resolve that conflict.

I imagine that allowing 1v1 WoW style duels would get old fast. Something much more interesting would be tournaments and various competitions, group related conflicts, etc

I'm not saying that instanced team deathmatch wouldn't be more interesting than 1 on 1 duels, just that it doesn't solve any of the problems existant in a world where PvP is by consent only.

Bring the noise.
Cheers...............

[HaemishM]

Maybe I got lost in the idea, but I don't think I said it was solving the problems of consensual PVP. I was saying that consensual PVP should be preferable to open PVP, i.e. sports vs. war, for an MMOG developer.

Maybe he is masturbating furiously because he finds the combat animations erotic.

Now that's probably one of the funniest things I've read all damn day.

[AcidCat]

You won't hit a mass market target with a game like that.

Probably true. But speaking from a gamer's point of view, I could care less if a game I enjoy reaches the "mass market" - all that matters is that the niche the game occupies is successful enough to keep the game going.

[AcidCat]

I don't think you have to look any further than Counter Strike or Quake or Tribes to find a good example of how PvP should be handled.

Make the field level.
Make the challenges/battles last a

finite predefined time.
Make goals for each side.
Make the goals affect the overall game. (If your side wins, that means.. what?)
Make everything balance with everything else.
Maybe even make the whole game finite. Start with a fresh board after the Axis win.[/list:u]

Drop levels, drop stats that change, drop any advantage not controlled by the player's skill.

Sure, that kind of PvP works great for FPS games, because it goes right along with the nature of the gameplay itself, it is skill-based. Why should an RPG, which almost by definition is level and number based, change its whole gameplay archetype to accomodate a PvP experience? I don't think it should, I think MMORPG PvP should be fundamentally different than other genres. Especially when that PvP is going to exist alongside all the other elements of the MMORPG that are level based - the PvP should exist within that same framework.

[Viin]

Sure, that kind of PvP works great for FPS games, because it goes right along with the nature of the gameplay itself, it is skill-based. Why should an RPG, which almost by definition is level and number based, change its whole gameplay archetype to accomodate a PvP experience? I don't think it should, I think MMORPG PvP should be fundamentally different than other genres. Especially when that PvP is going to exist alongside all the other elements of the MMORPG that are level based - the PvP should exist within that same framework.

As Haemish alluded to, the whole LEVEL thing is a flaw/crutch/passe way to do things. You can have a meaningful RPG game that does not involve levels or stats. Sure, your character can grow, but why does it have to be level/stat based?

There are many more areas where a character could grow that are meaningful and yet don't overpower the guy who is a few hours behind the curve.

Heck, breadth of options is a good one. Look at Guild Wars (forget the levels for a moment); each character type can have tons of different skills to play with - how well and what you use define your character. Doing quests to increase that breadth of options is fine; adding one more skill to your repertoire of possiblities does not overwhelm the guy who has only a handful of skills. He could still outsmart you (even with his, comparably, limited options) or get lucky and win the day.

[Margalis]

Sure, that kind of PvP works great for FPS games, because it goes right along with the nature of the gameplay itself, it is skill-based. Why should an RPG, which almost by definition is level and number based, change its whole gameplay archetype to accomodate a PvP experience?

Because the players are asking for it?

I have NEVER heard anyone in my life complain that MMORPGs take too much skill, and I have heard TONS say they don't take enough.

[AcidCat]

Because the players are asking for it?

I don't disagree, some surely are. But then judging by how fast WoW flew off shelves many players are still happy with the current MMORPG archetype. I don't know if or when RPGs will get past stats and leveling because many players see those as integral to what an RPG is. Maybe that's a shortsighted view, but as long as people continue to enjoy these games the point is moot to them.

[dusematic]

Has there ever been an article concerning MMOG's more pedantic?  You quoted Clausewitz and Cicero, and then my brain exploded.  I'm not saying you aren't smart, because those guys are tough to read.  The game you are describing sounds exactly like EverQuake, and it sucks.  You guys need to lighten up, this is getting unbelievable.

[Shockeye]

You guys need to lighten up, this is getting unbelievable.

I'm sorry you had to think.

[schild]

You guys need to lighten up, this is getting unbelievable.

Just because you aren't into it as much as we are doesn't mean you get the right to be a dick. If we don't take this shit seriously then no one will.

[dusematic]

It's likely a safe bet that anyone who posts on these forums is solidly in to these games.  The difference seems to be that I actually like them.  Which is to say, that I wouldn't create a blog for the expressed reason of ridiculing one of these games,  as well as the people who like them.  Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what these WoW blogs were/are all about?  I find GuildWars to be rather shallow, it isn't addictive, and it isn't immersive.  Yet, even GW is about six degrees of separation remvoved from this EverQuake manifesto.  I guess I'm in the minority on this one.

[Shockeye]

Which is to say, that I wouldn't create a blog for the expressed reason of ridiculing one of these games,  as well as the people who like them.  Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what these WoW blogs were/are all about?

Maybe your reading skills are a bit lacking, but if you look closer you'll see that the game actually turned out to be pretty good and completely decimated the point of the blogs. I wouldn't mind if all games were like that, but sadly they aren't. Next time read completely through something before you attempt to ridicule it. Thank you for playing.

[dusematic]

They are, but if the original intent of said blogs was to do precisely as I have surmised, and taking into account that I used the words "were/are," then I don't think you have actually adressed my point.  Your anger scares me, which brings me to my other point, that some of you may need to just mellow out a bit.

[HaemishM]

The WoW blogs, as well as most of my writing, have a self-deprecating tone to them. As they should, because I DO love MMOG's. If I didn't, I wouldn't spend hours (or minutes) writing articles talking about them. Or posting on message boards. I love them, and I love to hate them.

I would LIKE a little Everquake, as opposed to EverGrind. That's not a bad thing. Games like EQ aren't going away, because yes, some people like them. I want more.

And I couldn't finish Clausewitz; he really is that hard to read. Luckily, my Google-fu is strong.

[dusematic]

Wow, I understand where you are coming from and you did it all without criticizing my reading skills.  That's quality.

[HaemishM]

I'll try to call you a cockmitten next time. :)

[Arnold]

I'm not big on the instancing of PvP combat.  Sure, that option is great for duels and guild grudge matches, but it shouldn't be the main option.

Some of the most fun I've had in PvP have been with small guilds, running with 2-4 people total and taking whatever comes.  The unpredictable nature makes it fun.  You get everything from fighting off zerg rushes of gimp guilds to 5 way clashes of smaller guilds, to... hell, 5 way clashes of smaller guilds with a big fucking zerg (or two!) crashing against the heated battle in an attempt to take out anyone they can by way of cheap shots.  Anyone who has fought at the Bossy Barn will know what I'm talkin' about!

Also, the freeform, gangland style of PvP I'm referencing here tends to generate its own conflict and reasons for fighting.  There are just some people, lots of them, that you come to REALLY FUCKING HATE.  You hate them because they are cockmunches, or shit talkers, or gimpy shit talkers who brag about besting your guild, even though they can only do it if they have 5 times your number, and they only killed 1 guy while the rest retreated.

You just can't generate that type of conflict in a DAOC environment, where you can't communicate with your enemy.  Many a battle in Asheron's Call continued in a war of words through tells, long after the fight was over.  I know one guy who used to like to get the other party all worked up and ready to fire off a vulgarity infused masterpiece of vitriol, when he would mute them and piss them off even more!

[Arnold]

the 'you've got the good controller' argument goes back to at least the Atari 2600)

Now wait just a second!  THat was a legitimate complaint!  There would always be one controller that was more fucked up, due to someone pressing too hard during games, and it wouldn't respond as well.

[sinij]

I disagree that PvP should be penalizing to participants with long lasting consequences, after all most of us want to play rather than suffer and struggle.

I do agree that PvP should have goals and meaning to be fun, simple timeout for your enemy does not seem meaningful enough. Combining lack of individual penalty and meaningful consequences to PvP could be tricky. I think correct approach is to focus PvP goals and penalties toward guilds and leave individual players out of the equation.

[sinij]

I'm not big on the instancing of PvP combat. Sure, that option is great for duels and guild grudge matches, but it shouldn't be the main option.

 Instancing is anti-mmorpg, if you want to play with pre-selected group of people you should be looking elsewhere. Instancing is a crutch that holds flawed designs together.

[schild]

Wrong. Instancing keeps the assholes away from the fun I can have with my friends. Despite what people thing, the fun is in the world and friends. Not other people. If you need that kind of atmosphere without instancing, go to the mall.

[Arnold]

Wrong. Instancing keeps the assholes away from the fun I can have with my friends. Despite what people thing, the fun is in the world and friends. Not other people. If you need that kind of atmosphere without instancing, go to the mall.

Sounds like you want Diablo.  Have fun, k thnx.

[dusematic]

I sincerely doubt that instancing is wholly bad or wholly good.  I can see both sides of the argument.  When I first did the Deadmines in my attempt to slay Van Cleef, I just kept typing "This is awesome."  It felt like a real dungeon crawl with just our party, and monsters that stayed dead.  For me, that's as far as I would care to take the instancing schematic though.  If overdone, it would detract too severely from the MM in MMORPG.  Not that I might not enjoy a game that relies heavily on instancing such as maybe a Tabula Rasa, just that I would prefer if a game could overcome the need for instancing through design.

[stray]

Nice article Haemish, definitely worth thinking about...But atm, I disagree. You're right though, war is just a means. Ultimately (or so I think), the only goal for any serious PvP is for the fame and the "ph4t l3wtz". And if your idea of PvP still accomodates that in some way, then it could work.

Personally, I don't think it would. I don't think the desire for fame, infamy, or furthered power could ever be satisfied from scoreboard results and trophies won in instanced battlefields. Winning in these games is only remarkable when you make some kind of effect on the game world. "Fame" is not simply recognition. It's being able to hold some control in the game world....In one way or another.

So, it would seem that I'm only looking at this from the victor's side, not the victim's. I argue in favor of crushing enemies and in terms of gains, not losses...But what about the "crushed"?

The other point being brought up: "Skill" as opposed to stats...Well, I have no argument against that. It would go a long way, especially in a open PvP type environment, to help some players who would otherwise lose in a time-invested-based RPG. It gives them an equal chance to "Play2Crush" just as everyone else. I sincerely desire this myself, as I'm just as time-constrained as the next guy.

But why should there be any more to it than that...Like instancing? Introducing player skill evens it all out already. Instancing does nothing except shatter the idea that this is a world where things can be gained or lost. Only a loser would want that, and frankly, you can't give losers everything they want. I say give them a chance, yeah, but to give them more than that is really watering it down.