f13.net

Disagree at your peril!

Spurred on by a discussion in the Warcraft forum, I've done some meditating on the nature of PvE and PvP play, and why all attempts to integrate them are broken, and it seems pretty straightforward.

PvE mechanics are the original MMORPG mechanic (via MUD) and they come straight out of the tradition of single-player dungeon crawler RPGs, with a few core ideas:

1. The player explores a large world
2. The player advances in power, with new exciting abilities and damage numbers, in proportion to the increasing numbers and danger of the new sections of the world.

Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, Eye of the Beholder, Bard's Tale, KOTOR, Arcanum, whatever. . this is the basic RPG mechanic.

However, when people play games against each other, the ground rules are different, and incompatible.  Think Starcraft, NFL2k5, Doom, and Counterstrike for reference.

1. All players start on an even playing field.  There is no structural advantage.
2. Instances cycle quickly.
3. Players avoid being reamed by self-selecting their opponents.

MMORPGs break all of those, deeply.   The unsatisfying history of MMORPG PvP is, I think, a testament to the fact that standard multiplayer axioms cannot be glued together out of CRPG mechanics.  I'd go so far as to say that leveling as we know it is an exclusively PvE phenomenon.  And yet PvP in a PvE world without levels fundamentally breaks immersion.  What do you mean by lvl50 backstabber supreme just got beat by a lvl1 peasant?

Most games try to resolve this by making PvP an endgame, where everyone is equal level because they all went through the same PvE grind.  But this is just broken.  It means people who want to PvP have to tough out a game they don't want to play, and people who want to PvE get no end-game and an increasingly easy grind, to satisfy the power-levelers.

A couple, like GW and Planetside, try to replace the traditional leveling mechanic with the idea that character advancement gets you flexibility, rather than power.  For Planetside, and I predict for GW, this won't satisfy the PvE itch, and the player base will be primarily composed of people happy deathmatching, while the CRPG elements atrophy away.

I doubt it will ever be solved.  The requirements are incompatible.  I predict a future with a lot of good fantasy-esque PvP style games, like GW, and a lot of exclusively PvE MMORPGs, and a lot fewer problems.

You're largely correct, but the post makes me wonder where you've been for the last few years. Your predictions are of course entirely incorrect. There will be few good fantasy games, and many more problems. Every success breeds very many poor copies, and most every newcomer is destined to repeat the mistakes of the past.

A quick story from a WoW PvP server.

This weekend my level 21 shaman was cruising around Stonetalon Mountain, ridding the land of icky spiders. Off to my right, I saw a flash of red: a night elf hunter, cautiously making his way across the edge of the valley. I hid behind a tree (as well as a tauren can hide) and watched him go by.

He was level 24. He didn't see me, because he made no attempt to attack and I was behind him. I could have easily ambused him. But I didn't. Why? Because I knew where I was, it was a long run back from the graveyard.

Only three levels above me, but I knew I didn't stand a chance, even with the element of surprise, even if I was a highly skilled player.

I promised my friends I would stick it out on the PvP server until at least level 30, but I'm really beginning to wonder why.

Simply, this problem exists because for whatever reason in the computer realm of RPG's they definition was based solely on game mechanic - i.e. advancement makes the RPG.

*shrug*

Never mind the fact that there are a plethora of examples in the RPG meta-space of non-advancement dependent mechanics, or advancement that isn't based on character statistics.

As long a cRPG = stat and skill advancement, direct competition on MMOG's will never be reasonable.

But you all have all ready heard this a bajillion times before. What amazes me is that knowing this, people keep trying to play WoW et al as PvP games. Talk about absurdities...

True, but I don't think that's the problem here.  The success that everyone's supposed to be copying is Everquest, and PvP wasn't exactly a critical component there.  I don't know whether you'd call UO a success, but my understanding is that PvP was a nightmare for 90% of the participants, and was certainly a nightmare for 100% of the devs.

The idea that PvP is crucial to MMORPG and needs to be carried from game to game is some kind of ridiculous received wisdom that really needs to have a spotlight shined on it so we can see how naked it is.  Sure, it's a nice feature, but there are a lot of nice features that will fundamentally break your game.  The solution is to tell the PvP hardcore to go play Counterstrike (or in February, GW).  I uneagerly await all of the stupid nerfing that's going to go in WoW to balance out this or that class for PvP, screwing it up for the massive majority of people for whom it isn't an important feature.

I disagree somewhat.  Not all electronic football teams are equal.  Also, some RTS and FPS maps favor one side over another.


If someone is losing in a sports game and plays it to the conclusion, it can go one for quite some time.  In the other games though, quick loss=quick instance.


Play online much?  Unless you are in a clan or playing casually with friends on a private server, you are dealing with everyone on the net.
[/quote]

However, in most pvp settings you can look at thinks like win loss records, kills recorded, playtime, guild/clan affiliation, etc etc before jumping in such a contest.  At worse, if you play against someone way above your skill level you at least know not to play them next time unless you CHOOSE to.

It's the choice part which is very different than mmropg pvp; generally speaking, you can only make a choice based on geographic area if you want to pvp at all, but you have no choice over what sort of opponents you are going to face (beyond DAoC's level restricted battlegrounds) or even how many.  Which is another reason pvp gets shifted to the "end game" to try a mitigate that (i.e. even though you techinically CAN pvp before maxing out, in most games it's not worth it as you'll be at a disadvantage from the get go).  Same reason why it's generally not a good idea to go try to pvp solo.

Again; pvp generally works best with a level playing field but mmorpg's are all about not having a level playing field; players want to do everything they can to maximize their chance for winning b/c losing is often much more painful than winning with harsh death penalties and the kicker, wasted time.

Xilren

And how is that NOT fucking cool and exciting?

"Simply, this problem exists because for whatever reason in the computer realm of RPG's they definition was based solely on game mechanic - i.e. advancement makes the RPG. "

I think its more like 'character stats make the rpg'.  Remove the stats, and EVERY game is an rpg, rendering the term meaningless.  

So if someone wants to pvp in a mmorpg, and they don't see stats as defining the genre, they need only play ww2o, or planetscape, or bf1942 (which would be rpg games by their standards).  There they can RP to their hearts content, free of those restricting stats.

Sorry, but I don't get what you're trying to say here. You probably could have taken him out with little effort, especially with an ambush. If you were a skilled player, then you definitely would have.

I don't know what you are talking about. I took out a lvl 27 warlock back when my priest was 23. I've seen lots of people get taken down by people 3 levels lower than them. Yes 3 lvls is a pretty big advantage but if your able to get the drop on them and know how to play your class you should be able to overcome it.

You guys are fixating on garbage, stop being Bruce. If you don't like the 3 levels example, replace "3" with "30". Happy?

In online games, and before online arcade games, you cannot select your opponents - but you don't HAVE to because no opponent has an inherent advantage built in BY THE GAME. When I mosey up to the machine and pick Blanka against your Ryu the machine doesn't beep a couple times then print "Ryu level 12, Blanka level 67" because I played as Blanka each day for the past 3 months. If I have an advantage, it's because I'm better than you.

A problem nobody has stated is that PvP in MMORPGs is really divided into 2 different camps.

Camp 1: Wants a competitive environment. These players want to test their skill, play around with different tactics, builds, equipment, etc.

Camp 2: Wants a free for all, Wild West anything goes environment.

You can't have both of these at the same time and place on the same server.

If I am a developer and I want skill-based PvP, I can think of 30 or so ways to do that. Here's one: You get a group of people, you enter an arena, all your levels are capped at level X. So you can be under the cap (if you are a glutton for punishment) but not over. Voila! Does that satisfy camp 2? No. You can't satisfy both with the same mechanic. Does it allow players who want a test of skill to have one? Yes. If you want you can make the battleground an entire area so players can track each other, sneak up, etc. (It doesn't have to be a small arena)

I guess it depends on your stomach for PVP.  Personally, I've been having a blast recently with my guild group questing in contested zones on a pvp server.  Since we started the game relatively late and as Horde, we're behind on levels...but that doesn't prevent us from holding our own vs small gank duos 5+ levels higher.  Run with friends and learn some teamwork to overcome adversities.  

We just completed part of a quest in Booty Bay tonight.  That included having to avoid several 'Albs' 10+ levels higher who were in powertrip grief/gank mode.  But you somehow get the quest done, hearthstone out, and mark that player for some asshat griefing when you get the levels.

I hate to say it, but how about just sticking with Street Fighter then? Is there some reason why it isn't good enough anymore? I still like it myself, but I try to understand that there's a fundamental difference between Street Fighter and UO. UO isn't even Ultima for that matter. One will never be the other, so I try to enjoy them on their own terms. One's a game, the other's a world.
 
What I'm saying is the main issue here is that many gamers can't reconcile their concepts of other games with that of online worlds. I don't think it's an issue of playstyles, skills vs lvls, nice vs mean, competitive vs wild west --- it's a difference in understanding what it is they're even playing.

I do agree that there's bad things (and players) in MMO's that need to be fixed, but the more we try to turn them into a controlled experience, you destroy what it is that sets them apart.

If you can even out the playing field without destroying any semblance to the "world" elements, then I say great, go for it. But introducing artificial barriers so everyone can feel like they're playing Street Fighter Online is bullshit. How about well...just playing Street Fighter Online?

In WoW I can't attack people on my own side. Isn't that an artificial barrier? I mean, maybe I'm just a really pissed off troll that hates Orcs. If I tame a certain animal with an ability, it magically forgets that ability. That's not artificial?

I really fail to see how adding consensual battleground type of areas boxes anyone in or is a barrier to anything. If you don't like it, don't participate.

I have no problems with a free-for-all PvP type of world. I just wouldn't make that the only option when I think the majority of players are not really looking for that sort of experience.

I understand what you are saying about them being games and not worlds, but that really breaks down if you look at any individual game. Oh I swam for a while and hit a magical barrier, how world-like!

There is no such thing as understanding the genres. Genres evolve and spawn sub-genres. "It is what it is so don't complain" is lame. Maybe that's the problem with every medicore feature, the players have their heads on backwards.

It's clear as day that many players are looking for a MMORPG that includes a competitive environment without it being a total dog-eat-dog free for all. Give people what they want to play. It's a dumb business move to do otherwise. (Among other reasons)

It's pretty natural after killing 2 billion Rabid Rabbits that I would want to see how I stack up against another player. That is not the same as getting one-hit killed by another player.

If you need to make it more world-like, you can add some goofy backstory like it's the annual Horde vs. Alliance Olypmics or some shit like that. Yes, having a competition with rules is world-breaking to some degree. So is instancing, eliminating kill-stealing, training, allowing players to walk through other players, etc etc.

I said that some people fail to understand what some people want out of a of game. You *are* that person, and furthermore you are blaming it on the players for not understanding and accepting shitty game mechanics.

MMORPGs don't just exist in the aether. People make them, and they can make them a variety of ways. If I take WoW and add my level capped battlegrounds and people like them, is your retort that it isn't a MMORPG anymore? If so, who cares?

If I want to continue my poor analogy, I could say that SF2 didn't make sense because the whole point of SF1 was that you were Ryu trying to win a tournament. How does it make sense to play as some other character? Maybe the players just didn't get the game. How silly of them to want to have fun.

If I want to get together some buddies of mine, equip some cool fantasy items and duke it out in a non-FPS setting, where do I go for that? MMORPGs sound like the ideal candidate to me. It's just a very logical extension of what the game already offers.

---

How come I can't come into your room at night and kill you while you sleep? Now that would be a world.

Edit: This is kind of a pet peeve of mine, the idea that certain genre is rigidly defined and that by doing anything different you are somehow betraying the spirit of that genre. MMORPGs are all *remarkably* similar, like all the Pac-Man clones of yesteryear. People want to play fun games, genre are just for ease of classification. If I make a game that is a lot like a MMORPG, but is more different than most, what genre it is or whether or not it is a "true" MMORPG is really academic.

Maybe I don't want a MMORPG as you define it. I'm sure when some guy said "hey, it would be cool if you could choose more than one character" some other guy said "hey man, that's just not STREET FIGHTER anymore!"

If you have a way to make your game more fun, do it. Let retarded magazine pundits decide what genre to put it in. I'm not fixated on maintaining the pure bloodlines of MMORPGs. I see the players wanting X, X sounds pretty fun and cool to me, so I say give it to them. If you want to come up with a new acronym for that go for it. I don't want to play Street Fighter because that's not what I'm looking for. (At least, not all the time) I want to play MMORPG + Competitive Battle. Give it to me already! I want my MMORPGCB! (Rolls of the tongue)

I suppose it depends on the explanation.  And how much you are into RPing.

Is it artificial to not allow Space Rangers or Vulcans in WoW?  I might argue that those are not allowed by the system.  The characters are rejected outright by the GM.  And i am thinking the software is playing the part of the GM.  The world as created by the GM does not have Vulcans, or space rangers.  But theres more than that.  The world doesn't have movie theatres.  It doesn't have leprosy, it doesn't have certain mental illnesses.    Is it artificial to bar characters from having those?  

I'd go farther and say that the world doesn't have homicidal maniacs.  Is it artificial to bar those?  And lastly, it may not also have trolls that hate orcs.  Its no more artifical to bar those than to bar anything else i listed.  Certain characters just don't exist in the world.  And if you are finding the system preventing you from playing those characters, well, take it as a sign that that character can't exist in the world.  Just as much as Spock, or Luke Skywalker can't exist in that world.

Which is why is why I was talking about advancement. But hey you sure knocked the hell out of that strawman.

Feh. Nevermind. Moving along...

Die in a car fire, plzkthx.

You know good and goddamn well that character stats are not the defining trait of RPG's, except in the very-closed-minds of most MMOG developers. You also know that those games you mentioned are not in anyway conducive to true role-playing, even less so than our traditional mmogs. RPG's aren't just fantasy settings, and they aren't just something with character stats.

They are games where the primary mechanic is about living a character's life, as opposed to limited scope activities like "Just shooting in an FPS" or "controlling troops in an RTS." RPG's are more about the meta-game outside of the plain mechanics.

Uh, and I might argue that if I want to run around in WoW and pretend I am a space ranger I can do that and there isn't anything you or the "system" can do about it.

'FOR THE HORDE!"

"TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!"

God, I would so love to see that on the RP server.

Actually, 3 levels means hardly anything when it comes to PVP in WOW. The PVP mechanics for PVP work differently than the PVE. The spell resist rate and melee hit/miss chance for levels is very much lessened. Hell, when I was level 22 in Hillsbrad, I helped a few lvl 28s take down a lvl 42. My spells did get resisted quite a bit (I landed about 1 in 4) but any other level based mmog I would have had no chance of landing a single spell. During my stay in Hillsbrad I did quite a bit of pvp, and it was not unheard of for me to take down a solo player 10 levels higher than me. It was hard, and not common, but it does happen if you are a skilled player.

I love the fact that levels dont mean so much in PVP in WoW. Some of these guys comming from DAoC or EQ think that a few levels will make a huge difference. Its very satisfying to watch a lvl 45 come to a lvl 20 area and get swarmed by low level horde and killed.

Yes.  But OTOH, something with character stats is a big step towards being a rpg.  The more a role is defined seperate from the player, the more you are roleplaying.  I kind of want to say that a rpg doesn't imply character stats, but character stats imply a rpg.  But that would be a bit too strong a statement.  I would say its pretty close to being true.   Its more right than wrong.

True.  But you'd still be a troll, who only thinks they were a space ranger.  Space rangers still don't exist in the world except as fictional entities.  Much like balrogs are only fictional entities in this world.  You may find someone who claims and acts like  they are a balrog, but they are merely a human nutcase.  Much like the troll saying they are a space ranger who wanders around in wow would be a troll nutcase.  But certainly not a space ranger.

Actually I think the only troll around here is you and I think I'll stop feeding you now. Isn't there a bridge somewhere that is unguarded?

I can't even comprehend someone being so closed minded.

I think its all down to the time spent levelling, if you can do it fast, like GW (beta) then PVP in a diku mud/rpg might actually work. I didnt think it could until i played GWs beta weekend. That was more like Team Fortress than a mmog, i had great fun.

I nearly maxed out in 2 days, i also killed chars 3 levels above me with ease. It was a beta though, im sure they'll ruin it by putting timesinks in by release.

I"m going to second that, I've routinely killed Nightelves a few levels above me.  I don't try guys that are red simply because their equip Damage Reduction % + HP gained from leveling will make it very hard for me to dwindle their numbers.  My shaman bud and I have taken down reds all the time.  Silly nightelves, when will they learn not to attack lowbies.

I... love you, man.

This is a pretty circular argument. I can't be a troll that hates orcs and attacks them because they don't exist - even though I AM the troll, I DO hate orcs, and I have a mace handy...

I can't swim too far because swimming far doesn't exist. I don't see that as a consistent world design, as see that as a purposeful limitation made with specific reasons in mind.

I'm not talking about adding graphics and content. All I want to do is kill an Orc, something the game already allows in some forms, it's just a toggle that happens to be off.

The difference between your other examples and the orc-hating troll, rscott, is that the other examples are questions of whether particular beings or objects exist in the world.  The example of the orc-hating troll is a question of what attitude a player character is allowed to have.

There are many things that can be controlled in an RPG, but the player's brain isn't one of them.

So far, WoW pvp has been far superior to other MMO's I've played, even without a pvp reward system.  I think you have to approach pvp, especially on a pvp server, as part of the leveling perils...opposed to pvp as soley being the "end-game."

The environment of the game is a huge factor.  Booty Bay, Hillsbrad, Ashenvale...all leave their distinctive imprints to the fighting.  Fighting on the docks, in the water, and inside and around the cabins of Booty Bay >>> DAOC keep takes and Planetside base zergs.  City fighting in SWG was fun, but SOE mistakenly moved the focus of the GCW to generic faction bases.  Another thing, instead of taking itself too seriously like all other MMO storylines, WoW is a Saturday-morning cartoon with pop culture Easter Egg references all over.  As a result, I don't take the consequences of pvp all that seriously too.  It's 'stoopid' fun and it's refreshing.

For all the talk about levels not mattering much, I think, for sustainability, that level limits will have to be implemented.  We may be able to deal with enemies 5-10 levels higher(which is the case this early into release) in the newbie contested areas, but it'll be a different ballgame when many more people are running around as level 60.

I was going to add something, but you pretty much just said it better than I would have.

I truly think the first decision a game developer should make when making an MMO is: Is this a PvP game or a PvE game? I really don't think the two styles should be mixed. In the long run it always causes problems, for instance: Nerf cries by PvPers always make me mad because they tend to be at the expense of PvE viability.

Well if all you say is true, then why aren't you attacking then?  Since you aren't attacking, something you say must not be true.  Either you're not a troll (though the game confirms you are), you don't have a mace (i can see it), or you don't hate orcs.

Well, i suppose there are alternative explanations.  Your character may be a blowhard, or a wuss.  I guess the ultimate choice of explanation is yours.  Personally, I wouldn't choose those explanations for my  character myself. I'd just realize that orc hating trolls can only exist when they also have the trait of being a blowhard/wuss and not wanting to have a wuss troll, i'd just not make a orc hating troll.  

In retrospect, I guess that troll hating orcs CAN exist, but only when they have other character flaws that prevent them from carrying out on that hate.

Again, this is just my personal RP explanation for why you don't attack.  I'm sure there are others.

Or the game mechanics don't actually allow you to roleplay that, which is a bit of a problem with the game.

Little things like that DO inhibit freeform roleplaying. I'm certainly not saying that we should open PVP back wide again, but that developers and players need to realize that it only takes a little thing to encourage or discourage roleplaying. That little thing has so little to do with whether there are character stats or not that character stats are meaningless in those contexts.

But you can make this sort of silly argument for anything, which defeats the idea that something is a world. If you want to say it's a game and there are restrictions for good reasons, that's fine. I think it would be dumb if I could attack Orcs. But, that isn't a world-centric viewpoint, nor can you make it one with some cheesy explanation.

How is that any better and more world-like than battlegrounds or controlled PvP? You could come up with a goofy explanation for that as well.

Or you can roleplay an orc-hating troll by not grouping with them and making rude gestures behind their backs.

Of course.  But the more explained, the more thought out, the more detailed a world is, the less free form RP can happen.  Knowing nothing about a world, you could easily think that a sci-fi character would work or a fantasy character could work.  As soon as i pin down the world to tolkein, or whatever, i have reduced the number of valid characters that could be played.  I could then elaborate on the races.  Thats a  reduction as well.  I could define the races history.  That would reduce the RP options.  

An in depth world is good.  Personally i find the current crop of worlds as being bland, generic.  They aren't worlds, their props.  Theres no history (though interestingly enough, i kind of liked eq2 because i could remember what similar areas were like in EQ1,  in a sense, there IS a history there).  I think that each race, each god, each npc, all parts of the world should be given much better treatment than they have been.  Will that reduce freeform RP options.  Sure.  But the ones that remain viable will be all the more better for it.


Margalis: "But you can make this sort of silly argument for anything, which defeats the idea that something is a world."

No matter how i read this, it comes out strange, could you elaborate?

It's circular reasoning.

I say "how come I can't do X"
You say: "Because X doesn't exist in the game."
I say: "Well then how is that a world?"
You say: "Because the world is just defined as lacking those things."

So, that brings me back to my original point:

"I really fail to see how adding consensual battleground type of areas boxes anyone in or is a barrier to anything. If you don't like it, don't participate."

As I said, you can come up with some goofy backstory to explain it. I guess I have no problem with what you are saying, but it doesn't address my original point.

Somehow the fact that I can't attack an Orc is ok, the fact that I magically get tired swimming is ok, the fact I can't kill you in your sleep is ok, but having consenual battlegrounds breaks immersion and isn't a world anymore?

I can't kill Orcs for a reason. I can't kill you in your sleep for a reason. (I guess in your terms, "sleep" does not exist in this world) And, I should be able to perform restricted, competive PvP for a reason - fun is the common reason.

Once you have a fun mechanic, then you can worry about justifying it in your genero-fantasy world. There are plenty of ways to do so.

Okay. I didn't say that battlegrounds can't be given an RP justification.  So i didn't know that was the point you were arguing.  And even if i did, i don't think it would be circular, just inconsistent.  But thats not important.

I think i would prefer that the integration of a battleground be more thought out, perhaps  change the world alot more to allow them to fit more seamlesly.  Granted, this is tough when the game was out for several months, and they stick in battle grounds so people don't get owned by all the level 50s.

"Somehow the fact that I can't attack an Orc is ok, the fact that I magically get tired swimming is ok, the fact I can't kill you in your sleep is ok, but having consenual battlegrounds breaks immersion and isn't a world anymore? "

While i am not arguing this point myself.  Can't you step back a bit and see how at least in a trivial sense this is kind of understandable.  Being not allowed to kill other humans, getting tired, not being allowed to  kill others in their sleep are all things at least i've grown up accepting.  Its a small jump for me to see that as a given in a game.  Having a battle ground the way DAOC does it is foreign.  Perhaps its just a matter of what examples you've chosen, but among the examples you've listed, most are a small jump from what i've  become accustomed to, what i could easily get immersed in, whereas the battleground takes a bit more work.

Now arenas, with some sort of ladder tournament, with divisions that you could sign up for, some sort of  testing and weigh in, that would be easier to swallow, easier to be immersed in.  Though granted they won't give you the group combat feel  that the battlegrounds did.

The only difference between pvp by fighting avatars in daoc and competing widget shops in swg and competing template builders in eq is one of speed of play.

All of them are MMORPGs, all of them have some form of pvp.

To limit yourself to saying 'it's only pvp if it works this way' and 'it's only a MMORPG if it does exactly this' because 'it lacks this RL possible function and so isn't a complete pvp system or a complete world' is dumb.

No game models the entire universe. Simplifying and limiting the mechanics are the only way any game becomes functional. This applies to non-competitive and well as competitive play. Yes, there are restrictions on what you can RP. So? There are restrictions in the way a good GM will let you RP in DnD as well.  Actions in role playing *games* are always, and have always, been restricted in order to maintain the game for other players and deal with whatever limitations the rule set has.

Every game ever created includes capacity for competitive play. Play where players compete versus other players if you will.

Some proportion of them are MMORPGs.

Some proportion of MMORPGs are considered 'successful' by their customer base.

Ergo it is possible for MMORPGs to include pvp.



And the reason is that the game offers a limited range of characters for you to role play. The guy who kills people in their sleep is not one of them.

This is no different to playing dungeons and dragons.



In Kotor I can't disembowel Carth the moment I see him.

No matter how much I want to.

But Carth is part of the environment.

Does that mean kotor is not a proper pve rpg? Of course not.

Limited pvp in daoc or whatever is the same principle.

I think that would be a phenomenal endgame. It would take little effort to implement versus adding new content, and lasts for a lot longer. There are games that stay popular for years based on their competitive aspects without needing any new content at all. (Adding new content is a losing endgame battle)

But, I don't see how arena's and battlegrounds differ. Just make a battleground an area set aside for competition, and allow large goups in it. Maybe a giant walled in prairie or something. 2 teams enter, one team leaves.

It would just be an arena but much larger in scope.

By the time this happens, with any luck, they'll have implemented PvP rewards.  Not that I agree with leaving the system out and launching incomplete (I've gotten pretty annoyed at games that launch incomplete, CoH and FFXI being the exceptions), but there's a chance the rewards system will arrive right when this would be becoming a problem.  Then people will have a reason to go fight those their own level, and perhaps something discouraging them from camping lowbies.

I did play one online game that was 100% PvP, with characters that developed slowly over time.  It even had roleplaying, and all the battles were balanced in terms of character stats.  It was a text-only boxing sim, where you created fighters who would have fights scheduled for them against opponents of equal stats.  Winning would earn you "bonus points" that went towards additional stats, while taking punishment (even in victory) would get you "injury points" that counted against your stats.  You would script a fight strategy using a language very much like BASIC, and on fight day you would receive a blow-by-blow text account of the match.  IE...

If score > 12 - round then 1/1/18 (outside)

Means that if your corner thinks its fighter has an essentially invincible lead on the scorecards, he'll focus entirely on defense and try to run out the clock.  Some folks would try to write strategies that were hundreds of lines long and would self-adapt to anyone they were up against, while others would scout out their opponent in detail and write a five-liner specifically to beat them.  Was great fun for about a year.  People would roleplay on the "press release" board, all the fights were balanced, and the outcome was determined by player intelligence.

EDIT:  I played for a year, the game itself is quite old and is still around.

Sounds like the Avalon Hill Board game named Title Bout (1979).  It's a good idea and a fairly balanced method for PvP but as you have pointed out, there are some holes (i.e. the RNG plays a large roll in the deciding the winner and player skill can, at best, be used to counter discrepancies in the RNG outcomes).  The game has been made into text by several different people, but I rather prefer playing the old board/card version.

Not to derail the thread... just a nice visit down memory lane.

I managed to crack the world top 50 at heavyweight in this game, had a fair number of fights.  Random factors could decide a very close fight, but you never felt like you'd been cheated, really.  If it were close enough that a cut or a weird call from the ref made the difference, then your victory would have been far from certain anyway.  Had fun knocking out a particular "elite" manager's rising heavyweight with a three-line fight plan, because I had pored over the text accounts of his previous fights until I could guess his stats and knew what he would most likely try to do against me.