f13.net

Read2Crush! (http://www.f13.net/index2.php?subaction=showfull&id=1102699515&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&)

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

Somewhat like 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.

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.

"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.

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.

Yes, Yes, Yes.

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

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............

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.

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

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.

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'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...............

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.



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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm sorry you had to think.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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!

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

I think it has to be a blend here. My point is that stats should at their worst put you at a disadvantage, but should not outright decide the outcome. There needs to be enough of a stat element that players see some benefit through long-term play, but enough of a skill element to prevent the automatic wins in newb ganking, and to make it possible for a skilled player to beat a zerg rush when jumped with numbers.

Note that I say such things should be possible...that doesn't mean easy.

You want to take care against going too far into the "player skill" camp. In RPGs, after all, the point is you are probably playing someone quite unlike yourself. Your nimble assassin should have much better reflexes as a character than you do as a player....if the performance of that character is irrevocably tied to the clumsy buttfuck at the keyboard, the character is permanently marginalized.

Consider also that for everyone's ability to develop and progress and advance their skills, a game based on player skill has a high barrier to entry for most folks. And even the ones who get hooked on it can only progress their skills so far...some folks, for all of their practice and effort, are just never going to be able to play at an elite level.

There's a progression from twitch to oldschool UO combat to the Squaresoft RPG real time combat to a chess match to simple 'click and stick' of MMOGs where combat is almost solely determined by stats.



Instancing keeps people from interfering for good or bad. It prevents reinforcements and the returning dead. Thus, all battles reach conclusion at some point, and a winner is determined. This is opposed to current MMOG combat where immortals are locked in eternal battle that doesn't end until someone gets bored, or has to log off to walk the dog or do their homework.

My personal tastes would just as soon say "it's a world, this stuff should be able to happen" but I'm not as opposed to open PvP as most MMOG fans.



He very well might. But here's the part you need to consider....a LOT of MMOG players just want a persistent Diablo with regular content updates and more character customization. And quests. And houses with nice bright sunflowers you can put on the window sill. And a pony.

That doesn't make them wrong....just that most of them never wanted the first M in MMOG to begin with. It's what they had to put up with to get their PSW version of Diablo.

You may disagree, as I do, that those should not be the people dictating the content of all MMOGs....but we have to face facts that without these folks, the genre would be a much smaller niche market than it is already.

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

Hmmm. Yes, there are things in Diablo that could fix things. But when I'm out questing or hunting, I don't want other people "fucking with my shit, yo." I want to play the game with friends and whatnot. When I'm in town or going resource gathering or something, that can all be massively online multiplayer whatever. But any focused activity should be far removed from the idiots you'll find spamming a chat channel.

Oh, I agree. When I talk about player skill I don't mean 'twitch' skills alone (or at all). Player skill also includes tactics and strategy. It can also include leadership (organizing your group/party to out-maneuver your opponents).

One of the reasons I like GuildWars so much is because it has the potential to be a very solid tactics based RPG. I already enjoy the PvP arenas when I'm fighting along side people I don't even know - imagine how fun it'll be when we are in an organized group!

That's exactly it. Not a single one of the current MMORPGs really requires strategy or tactics. Which really makes everyone else just window dressing. Hence my current love of instancing.

I can't PK people at the mall. Friends are predictable. Assholes aren't. Instancing is predictable. A virtual world isn't.

That being said, I like Guild Wars, not as an MMOG but as a game.

I'd like to see a developer try the tack of nerfing the winner in PVP and buffing the losers. Keep nerfing the winner until the winner loses and then reset the winner to normal. Repeat with the new winner. Every "win" becomes progressively more challenging for the winner. The winner feels like an underdog when they win and the win is all the more satisfying because the winner beat down the guy who had a flaming sword with a fork. The loser doesn't feel like a loser because he had all kinds of cool/powerful shit to play with even though he lost.


Re the article: I don't care for "sports" games but there might be a happy medium between "sport" and "war". Guild Wars seems well on it's way to finding it.

I agree. If you think that other people affecting your game is a bad thing then you shouldn't play mmorpgs since that about only thing that mmorpg can do better than readily available alternatives.

Game should be designed in such way that assholes should not be able to negatively affect your game play in PvE games and that you should have readily available and meaningful means to retaliate in PvP games.

I disagree. In old UO days being part of the crew that controlled important spot was a thing to strive for.  Back in a day my guild controlled Moonglow and our enemies resided in Occlo - for us controlling our 'turf' was a matter of principle and trespassing in Occlo was exciting and dangerous thing to do. There were tons of spots like that with a group of people that took pride at being called "such and such crew". I'm sure most of UO old timers remember X-roads, Destard, Brit GY and many other otherwise unexciting spots that were put on the map by people that run it. If simple ‘fame’ could be such strong motivating factor imagine what tangible rewards and ability to negatively affect your enemies would do.

Negatively affecting your enemies will not work.

The problem with war in MMORPGs is that in real war, one side eventually loses, and losing isn't fun. So you can take over my main city and burn it down and now I can't buy any waepons anymore - ok I quit. Your choices are either have a war that lasts forever with no real consequences (boring) or have a war with real consequences and have everyone on the losing side switch servers or unsubscribe.

And again, people are refusing to acknowledge that there are two types of PvP players: players who want the unpredictability of a Wild West free for all, and players who want a competition.

Until people acknowledge that those two things are very different, they will keep arguing in circles forever. If I propose something that appeals to group B, the response can't be "well what about group A?" Those are two DIFFERENT problems.

It's easy to give group A what they want. Just let anyone kill anyone at any time, problem solved.

Group B is harder to please. Hence this discussion.

I didn't read the whole thread but:

While reading the article, I couldn't help but think about Shadowbane, about the things I liked and the things I hated about that game. One thing that I remember (at least in beta) is this group of roleplayers that split themselves into sides, so they had a 'gentleman's agreement' sort of pvp. I think that's superior in the long run and it's sort of what you're suggesting. I wonder if it's up to the players or the designers to make the game like that.

It has to be up to the designers. The first rule of MMORPGs is players WILL break something if they can. Gentleman's agreements will never work amongst a random collection of individuals. In a guild, yes. In a wide open scenario, no way.

I remember in the Tribes: Vengeance BETA there was a guy who would go from server to server killing his own team members. If people can do it, there will be someone who will.

But the question that is still seriously debated is how much should you then limit interaction to prevent such things before the fact? The only way to take away a player's ability to say "FUCK YOU COCKNIBBLER" is to take away the ability for players to openly communicate with each other. At least, if you want to protect people before-the-fact, and have it be 100% effective.

What the other side is saying Margalis, is that if you accept that the intent for abusive behavior is going to exist no matter what you do, then in many ways a "less is more" approach is desirable. The core belief being that you have to free up the players to organize and respond as needed to enforce the norms of the gaming society. In effect, player justice.

Haemish's argument is based in part on player justice being unattractive for the mass-market...friendly competition being preferable in the mass-market to all-out war. For all you can do through code or admins, you're fighting a losing battle to use them as a way to filter out the negative interactions in your community, yet let the positive interactions through.

The problem, of course is that every measure to block bad interaction also limits good interaction. Every attempt to enable more positive interaction will also enable negative interactions.

So how far do we go? We're truly talking about finding a happy medium between laissez-faire open interaction and single-player or limited multiplayer games (i.e. Diablo)...an "acceptable level of suck" for MMOGs, if you will. How far do we go?

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

That happened on probably every server in UO.  There was lots of arguing that went along with it.  "He attacked me without following procedure."  "Those guys are ressing and coming back to fight.  I'm going to start looting corpses so they can't"  etc.

I don't believe that player justice really exists in MMORPGs. It's a myth. Players don't have the tools for real justice, and the world conditions aren't right.

Take WoW. If I call you, you can just come back 5 minutes later. How is that justice. If a high level player is ganking lowbies in a lowbie zone, what incentive is there for high level players to come kill that guy then camp his corpse for a while.

Justice in real life involves social norms, societal pressure, organized forces, codified rules of behavior, prisons, etc. MMORPGs have none of those.

In the real world cops work because they get paid and because they want to help people. In MMORPGs you don't get paid for helping people, and the incentive to help isn't nearly as strong. (If they die who cares, it's a game, and besides you have more giant spiders to kill)

If you allow open PvP, sure you allow some people to get justice or at least temporary revenge, but you also open the door to more abuse - which is FINE by me again if you are looking for a Wild West scenario. I see how that appeals to people - it doesn't appeal to me.

What appeals to me is "I've tested my mettle against 10000 Spiny Cockroaches, it would be cool to test it against a real person." Or "We are the best guild in the land and we're going to prove it head to head."

That has nothing to do with griefing, anti-griefing, player justice or any of that. It's just a logical extension of what people want to do in a game, like having a war sim game with a 2 player mode.

But look at Asheron's Call.  You get a cumulative penalty of 5% on your skills evreytime you die, called "Vitae Loss".  You also lose a number of items, per death, depending on your level.  Granted, your gear was protected by "death items" (items of high value  that are otherwise worthless to the owner), but after a couple of deaths, you'll be dropping REAL gear and will be operating like a character of a much lower level.

The thing is in real life, you kill someone once, you are going to jail for a long time. Go on a murder spree and you die or spend life in prison. In a perma-death game, player justice might work well.

The problem is PvP is supposed to be fun and something you do! The problem isn't killing people (like it is in real life), it's killing the wrong people in "unsportsmanlike" fashion.

I don't see stat loss/item loss as being a pro or a con. It sucks worse to die, but it's that much more fun to gank newbies who now have the added benefit of losing all their gear.

Especially in WoW, where there are two sides that are supposed to be at odds. In game fiction terms, it sort of makes sense that my level 60 guy kills your level 5 guy. It also isn't any fun.

I'm all for stat loss and item loss and what have you, but I'll say it again: THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF PVP PLAYERS AND THAT IS ONLY RELEVANT TO ONE TYPE.

That is why discussions on board go nowhere. The PvP people who want competition are called carebares by the free-for-all fans. Stat loss, item loss, all that stuff is great for tweaking the wild-west style PvP, but adds nothing for people looking for competitive PvP. For those people PvP is not about player justice, vengeance, or a wide-open world, it's about skillfull competition.

If you are going to solve a problem, step 1 is identify the problem - and everyone is stuck there!

But we're talking about MMOGs.  If you want to play Streetfighter, go play Streetfighter.  The rest of us want the unpredictable interaction with other players.

In other words, fuck you and go quit if you don't like open PVP?

Hey, why don't you guys go find Raph Koster.  Together you can design a "virtual world" full of "consequences" and "player justice."  Then you can all sit around wondering why it fucking sucks and nobody plays it.

The problem is that you'll never even get the entire playerbase to agree on what is and is not sportsmanlike. You had consentual duels in UO, where losing players went crying to the message boards BECAUSE OMG THEIR OPPONENT USED A HEALING POTION.

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

No, the rest of us don't.

That kind of inflexible thinking is quite frankly retarded. Is it your religious duty to protect the sanctity of MMORPGs?

I would point out in SF1 you could only play as 1 character. Does that mean SF2 was a bad idea? In GTA: SA you can train your attributes but in the other GTA games you couldn't - so GTA:SA isn't a GTA game anymore?

Why say "they rest of us" when you mean "I"? That's pathetic.

Your logic is the grade-school level "love it or leave it." I would point out that some MMORPGS have NO PVP AT ALL. Maybe those aren't real MMORPGs?

You are constructing a completely fake an idiotic either/or scenario. All people all asking for is a LOGICAL ADDITION TO THE GAME. We're not talking about making the game a 2d sidescrolling Mario adventure. Take the game you have, then take a baby step forward by adding a feature a bunch of people want.

Margalis: "You know what would be cool? An RTS game with more than 2 distinct sides."

Arnold: "If you want Street Fighter, play Street Fighter!"

Good call genius.

You don't need everyone to agree, but you don't have to. You just have to cut down on the worst behavior the best you can. Just like all MMORPGs have some ways to grief even in strictly PvE environments, but some are worse than others.

In the end the players will have to put up with some things that rub them the wrong way, that's alright. You just want to avoid a huge outcry. A lot of people in WoW are pissed and complaining about the same thing. (And it isn't using potions!)

You can't eliminate every problem, but you can eliminate huge problems. At some point you do have to say take it or leave it, but first you have to make at least a reasonable effort.

From my perspective, it started sucking when they started messing with the game systems, and no, I'm not specifically referring to UO:R.  I played Siege, so it didn't disrupt my game as much as some on regular shards.

BODs, powerscrolls, faction blessing, AOS, etc...  that's why I no longer play it.

No, the perfect game is what we are asking for. A MMORPG with skillfull competition. Well not perfect, but what a lot of people want. I am fully aware of the other types of games that exist, and I don't want them, at least not to fill this need.

"If you don't like open PVP, leave it."

Yep, most people did. UO only removed, nerfed or adjudicated open PVP when PEOPLE STOPPED PLAYING (and thus paying). This is a lesson some people still haven't gotten. Open PVP worlds are great in theory; but as a commercial, mass-market venture, they do not make the money. Period. UO lost a shitton of players when it would not constrict or otherwise control the amount of open PVP allowed. It's solutions were terrible solutions, I will grant you that. But not one game since has shown that having wide open PVP is a commercially-viable option for a game the size most MMOG's need to be.

MMOG's are a niche game. They are a niche of another niche genre, RPG's. Open PVP MMOG's are a niche of MMOG's. Thus they are a niche of a niche of a niche. More people have shown themselves to be receptive to a competitive, yet restricted, PVP environment than an open one.

I'm not going to tell you that there isn't an open PVP audience, as I think that's quite obvious. But it isn't as big as that market thinks of itself. An open PVP MMOG would do well to maintain 50k subscriptions over a year's time.

Look at Shadowbane. Sold really well in the beginning. But its design flaws, as well as its bugginess, killed it. It was way too punishing on the losers, causing them to quit. Which caused the winners to quit because there was no one to fight. Now it has server populations that are about 1/4 what they were at release. There are two lessons in there, one of which is do not release a buggy fucking game. But the other is that open PVP is even more tricky to balance than PVE, for a lot less money.

"Player justice."

Myth. It won't happen. Wishing it would happen won't help. Player justice in MMOG's isn't justice, it's vengeance. And the people who are punished are not punished in an equitable fashion.

Look, justice works in the real world because the punishment is often more damaging than the crime. If someone murders someone else, they either get a death penalty, or they get locked up for life. In an MMOG, player justice can't work this way. The killer takes his victim and then what? If we have player justice, all that amounts to is someone else coming along and killing the killer. Woop. The killer is right back "out on the streets" and can be up and killing again as quickly as his victim. The punishment is way out of whack to the crime. The victim might have just been wanting to mine but now his mining has been interrupted. Meanwhile the killer is out there wanting to fight and kill, so if a player justicar attacks him after he kills the miner, he's gotten TWO fights for the price of one.

A developer cannot rely on player justice for the same reason there are 2 schools of PVP such as Margalis said. Players who enjoy PVP can't even agree on how open PVP should be. You want players to decide justice?

It would be an interesting social experiment, but again, it won't be mass market.

The mass market are sheep. The mass market wants fun, not "reality." They don't want a virtual world, they want to play in a world-like game with their friends. That doesn't preclude the development of ANY virtual world type game, but both the developers and the players need to realize that it won't be a mass market game.

Can't we just all agree that pre-Trammel UO was the best game ever?

No, seriously, I went back to UO so many times but it just wasn't the same without all the ganking.  The thing about UO was, you could afford a complete suit of platemail and a viking sword practically immediately.  So, while dying sucked it didn't destroy a person's sanity, as losing all of your gear at level 50 in EQ would.  

I always found UO hilarious.  The more ridiculous and contrived, the more "d00ds" the better.  I have never made so many distinct memories while playing another game.  I know a lot of people don't like open PvP, and I totally understand.  I wouldn't want it in a game like WoW or EQ2 either, and I think that removing the ability to loot your opponent lessens the draw.  

I am surprised that so many people complain about all the inconcievably stupid and immature happenings in UO.  I always found it very amusing.  It just seemed to fit within the context of the game.  In a game like WoW people are infinitely more annoying, though I have a feeling it's probably because I'm not allowed to attack them.

No. Seriously. It wasn't.

For fifty bucks up front and another fifteen a month, you're goddamned right.  I'm not sure where this notion of MMOG as navel-gazing social experiment on the nature of internet dumbfuckery came from, but it sounds like something Raph Koster came up with between bouts of fiddling as UO burned.

I didn't walk into GameStop looking to buy a virtual world, I plopped down my cash for a fucking multiplayer computer game, okay?  Can some of you assclowns take a second away from theorizing on the interactive dynamics of virtual spaces long enough to deal with that?

I don't just mean here on these boards.  I mean all you drunken pseudo-intellectuals that have been spouting off on various spawn-of-Lum websites for the last seven years, as if "Gee, why is UO so full of shitheads?" is some sort of burning question that will dictate the course of human interaction in that shiny cyberpunk future where everyone uses teh intarweb for everything.

I mean, guess what?  So far it seems like World of Warcraft has cracked the code and solved the mystery that is the making of a fun MMOG, at least from my perspective.  The magical formula?

1 - Give me shitloads of quests and stuff to do.
2 - Keep the gankers over there where they won't bother me.

Really, that's about it.  And if it gets boring someday, I'll just fucking quit.  That's right.  Nothing is fun forever, and questing for an MMOG you can play from now until Doomsday and always have fun is just a fool's errand.

No, WoW came up with a better slot machine. Enjoy your blinky lights. There is nothing wrong with a better slot machine if you don't mind staring empty eyed at the blue glowing screen while the drool drips down your chin.

Hell, they almost suckered me in too.

Is there really any objective to playing games other than having fun? This blinky-light slot machine is sure delivering it, and that's all that matters.

Oh man, you're right!  My game is just a sad addictive zombification machine for sheep!  But if they added open PvP grief-ganking, man, then it would be totally different!  It would become a dynamic and exciting virtual world full of unpredictable excitement where everyone lived under the harsh but even hand of player justice!

Oh wait.  It'd be the exact same game, but with assholes ganking newbs, and 75% fewer subscribers.  My bad.

Jesus titty-fucking Christ, it never ceases to amaze me how pretentious certain dipshits can be about their videogame r0xx0ring of those who suxx0r.  If some guy acts like a cockmunch and you can just ignore or otherwise easily marginalize his effect on you, that's bad.  But if you and the cockmunch can clobber each other with the game's combat mechanics, it's a revolutionary exploration of human conflict.  Right.

Really, you're whacking people in a videogame, champ.  You're not living in the Old West.  You're not showing anyone that you have a big dick.  You're doing something about as relevant to the universe as Super Mario Brothers.  Get the fuck over yourself.  Nothing in these games matters, except insofar as someone likes them enough to pay the company for them.

And you're on a forum telling people who discuss video game nuances to get a life. You obviously didn't get the memo, "get real" is not an acceptable argument on how to improve games. It's basically as constructive as saying "stop paying" if you have issues with the dynamics. In any case, pvp is important to many, but broken to almost all due to the system. That's the issue. Get on track.

No, I'm telling people who think they're discussing something of import that they ARE in fact discussing video game nuances.



Ceasing payment is the most constructive thing to do in that instance, yeah.  It's the only thing a company really listens to.  Coming to boards like this and posting long-winded diatribes that amout to "Give me PvP but no griefing, character advancement with no repetition, and reward my efforts but keep that catass who plays 18 hours per day from getting ahead of me!" certainly hasn't affected jack shit.



PvP is important to a niche of a niche of a niche, and it's broken because people act like fuckheads.

...wherever did you get the idea we thought this was important? "Important" isn't the same thing as "interesting".


Ah, okay. And if you go to a restaurant and they give you regular Coke when you asked for diet, your only or at least best recourse is to storm out in anger and never go there again, no matter what? Or at least until they change managers? Even if they have the best damn burgers in the tri-county area?

Because these _are_ video game nuances, and there are a couple skrillion other nuances about the game that may very well be enjoyable, in much the same way that the meal may be enjoyable even if the drink isn't up to spec. This does not stop people from wanting their Diet Coke.


Uh, competition in general - or if you will, mediated conflict - is a, if not the, driving force for societal progress, and properly managed can produce a favorable outcome even for the losers. I doubt there's anyone alive over the age of about six who hasn't engaged in some real-world PvP.

The Internet is a form of society with some amazing changes from what anyone's studied. For one, the physics are entirely mutable. The issue at hand is how it might be possible to create PvP that minimizes the brokenness - or, yeah, in a larger perspective, how to give newbies and catasses a level ground, how to create advancement without the feeling of repetition.

Raph has some things to say about that last (if your game has anything that can be repeated, people will repeat it, all the while complaining about repetition) but the challenge is whether it's mechanistically and sociologically possible to create a universe that tends toward fairness, adventure, and honorable combat.

--GF

Some of us are actually passionate about video games. Like me, for instance. It IS important to us, though we obviously aren't going to say that our discussions are as important as say, medical research or even the proper amount of jiggle factor in a pr0n video. But that doesn't mean our discussions can't have merit, nor that we can't enjoy them.

Yes, anyone that thinks our little mental circle jerk is going to change the industry is naive. But that doesn't invalidate the discussion of the nuances.

Sweet Christ....some folks in this thread need to learn to append comments with "to me" or "for me".

For example:

Open PvP is fun FOR ME.

Debates about games are not important TO ME.

Diablo is not exciting TO ME.

Also acceptable: IMO.

The value-added benefit such notation provides is that we can simply declare ***YOU GUYS*** to be retarded shitbubbles instead of getting into a massive ideological debate about which position is inherently superior.

And calling you folks retarded shitbubbles is fun FOR ME....so get with the program.

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

Who let you out of your cage? Politics get boring?

No, but if you've been asking them to serve beer for the last seven years and they're clearly not paying attention, you ought to either demonstrate their folly by taking your business elsewhere or STFU and drink your Coke.  Not sit around composing reams of pseduo-intellectual drivel about how much it would r0x0r if Joe's Burger Shack had Killian's on tap.



You're not going to convince them to give you Diet Coke.  All you're going to do is talk yourself blue while hoping someone else just so happens to open a restaraunt that has it.

Actually, based on the "everything in the world, plus a pony" attitude that pervades, it's more like hoping for a restaraunt that serves Olympian Ambrosia that tastes awesome, gets you high, has zero calories, and makes your cock bigger.



Which has fuck-all to do with getting more MMOG players to like pwnage.  I mean, we already have PvP.  Some people like it, some don't.  All I ever hear from the board crowds, though, is that more people would love it if every MMOG didn't do it wrong.  Not that they really have the least clue how to do it any better.



If you put newbs and catassers on level ground, you'll have the catassers crying into their "Can't leave this raid to use the toilet!" piss-buckets, and the usual suspects will just start ranting about how the game is as meaningless as Quake.



I'll give a shit what Raph says when he designs a game that doesn't suck donkey balls.  Meanwhile, the answer to your question is a simple no.  People are never going to be any more fair or honorable in an MMOG than they are now.  Why?  Because character death, even permadeath and/or social ostracization, don't mean shit in a goddamned videogame where b0n3d00d can merrily "kill himself" in the act of pissing you off and then log off and go teamkill in Tribes or torture puppies or whatever.

People will act like dicks in a game, because none of it means shit when they turn the computer off.  Period.

Ultima Online was one of the greatest games, ever.  Play again?

You're almost as hypocritical as rscott. You'll have to keep trying though if you want to win grand prize.

Which is why some people would advocate extreme measures like banning account keys for asshattery in game.  It's about the only measure which has an out of game consequence i.e. you're out $50 or what ever it cost to buy another box/key.

Which is also why some people advocate the development of yet another niche within a niche, a premium offering with corresponding higher costs to buy in and play, and more oversight and penalties.  The theory being, the higher the real world cost, the less likely people are to act like asshats.

Would it work? In theory yes, in reality, who knows how much the price would have to be to offset the lower subscription numbers and increased Customer Service costs let alone the percentage of asshattery this would prevent.

I'd say were at least 5-10 years away from seeing anything even attempted like that (EQ's "premium" server notwithstanding).

And as to the overall uselessness of posting stuff like this at, why are you here again?  Hell I've gotten more enjoyment from the discussion of some of these games then the games themselves... like Lineage2.  What's that phrase? "Bored gamers with IT jobs"

Xilren

Ultima Online was a great idea, executed shittily, that didn't become worthwhile until Koster left and someone in charge finally decided to fence off the retards.

As for banning accounts, credit cards, whatever, fine.  A game company can certainly throw people out for whatever it likes.  But you'll still have scads of people engaging in any sort of non-banworthy asshattery that exists.

And if the game is open PvP, you'll have people running around wasting other folks just for the hell of it.  Period.  Tack on penalites, and they'll become a badge of honor for the asshats.  Penalties harsh enough to stop random gankage will probably stop all PvP and the system will be pointless.

So if you want open PvP, fine.  May someone make a Shadowbane minus the suck for you to r0x0r for all eternity.  But wake up and realize that free-for-all PvP is ALWAYS going to be chock full of random ganking dipshits, and there really ISN'T some secret magical design that will change that.

While it isn't really connected to thread, this thread has 'War' and 'MMORPG' in the title of it's article, so I'm going to mention again that I want to play a 'Total War' MMOG.

Levelling up would consist of getting more resource points to spend on an army, 'classes' of your general would affect the units available (primarily to encourage grouping). You form up a moderately well balanced group of generals, and go off to fight pve battles against npc armies, or pvp battles against pc armies.

I also want a flying car.

kthx.

YES.

Or something like Warhammer table-top game online. Would be somewhat easy to do, and could be cool as hell. Warhammer has an established system of buying guys by point cost, it would translate pretty directly.

You speak of War, you speak of conflict, then you speak of competition.

Some of us?  Some of us want war.  I don't want the teams to be balanced, I don't want the odds to be fair, I don't want my opponents to be equivalent.  I want my raw abilities to be faced by those of others in a situation that is fluid, uncertain, and all the more thrilling for it.  I want to be outnumbered 4-1 and I want to have a chance of winning despite it, by merit of my abilities as a player and my knowledge of the game's mechanics.

You're talking about taking the rogue aspect of true conflict out of games, making the "PVP" more lifeless and meaningless than it ever could possibly be otherwise.  You're trying to tell me, and all people like me, that open conflict is a bad thing... when that is what truly makes these games fun for us.

At least on Tallon Zek on EQ, I didn't know what I was going to face up against.  On warcraft, I could destroy a hunter 4 levels over me and get screwed up by a mage 3 levels lower.  On UO, I might jump out of the shadows to kill someone who looked like a lumberjack only to get my ass destroyed.  I might pop out and attack a hardcore-looking PK only to completely decimate him.  I could run into a group of 15 people all looking to kill me, off three of them, and run out with 5 hp and a hard surge of adrenaline.

You're talking about removing all of those aspects of conflict that make it a fundamentally human and real thing.  Aspects that vivify the experience for us, suffusing it with the opportunity to implement our primal instincts.  As it is now, some of these games give me the chance to exercise those abilities granted me by evolution that do not belong in the modern world of today.

PVP is fundamentally designed for the mature player.  This is why we do not let six year old children fight in wars (If we want to win the war, at least.)  Only a mature mind can look at "virtual" loss and find humor or entertainment in it, only a mature individual can be defeated by an opponent and still respect them, and only a mature individual can deal with the random qualities of a world that allows open conflict... because after all, the mature individual has typically experienced real misfortune and has grown accustomed to handling it in real life, such that losing a couple of goofy items in a game is not even worth frustration or negative feelings.

I play World of Warcraft now, after about seven solid years of MMOG gaming.  A game that has taken a step in the right direction, after Asheron's Fall, Everjest, and Shadowlame.  The industry has devolved, and I hope to god that Haemish's proposition of turning conflict into one big rinky-dink sports event never, EVER happens, and if it does I hope it doesn't become an industry standard.  If that were to happen, I would likely end my seven year stint with online RPGS in disgust.

-p.e.[/i]

Sleeping in trees and scavenging leftovers from the real predators are also fundamentally human and real things.

Just sayin'.

--GF

That's great. I want a pony.

How many times do I have to say that there are two types of PvP players and you can't please both at the same time?

Seriously, let me say it again:

THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF PVP PLAYERS AND YOU CAN'T PLEASE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.

If you want a game with open PvP, play a game with open PvP. Some of us don't want that game. There are plenty of games that cater to you, and none that cater to another very sizable population.

There is no reason different games can't appeal to different players, or even the same game, just not at the same time.

see this kind of topic is where I think SWG had a great opportunity and seriously dropped the ball.

the game could have been about the power struggle of Imperial sympathizers and the Rebellion in the power vacuum that is a galaxy without the Emperor or Darth Vader. All of a sudden there are two sides locked in a grand civil war fighting for control of the galaxy (it isn't like all of a sudden the Emperor died and everybody fell into the New Republic - there was a great period of time as the Republic was trying to be built).

putting this into a MMORPG setting the game could have become about your faction fighting for control of the galaxy, and you doing your part to turn the tide and win the Galactic Civil War. If you were a rebel that meant expanding the reach of the New Republic. As an Imperial you are trying to stop and then reverse this tide of change.

To accomlish this you could setup a sort of capture the flag type system in each of the cities on each of the planets. at the start the populated planets could be placed under imperial and rebel control: naboo and rori for the empire. Corellia and Talus for the rebellion. Tatooine, Lok and Dantooine undecided. in each case all but one of the cities on the planet were under control of the majority group with an opposition stronghold (i.e. Moenia on Naboo).

then sides could fight and take cities under control for one side or the other. the more cities you control the better defenses you get on that planet. the more planets controlled the better bonuses that side gets in the galaxy.

and at the end of the day the fighting in the streets would mean something, when it largely doesn't. folks would care about what happened in theed the other night because it'll impact them, as opposed to now where if you're not involved you really don't care.

it would be pvp as a means to an end. not pvp just to say there's pvp.

lol newb its just a game!!1!

Nothing wrong with what you want, but you, sir, are in the minority.

EDIT:



On that I will agree with you. However, it has been shown time and time again the majority of MMOG players are in no way mature. They are barely at the level of eating with a cork on the fork. And it is those players who fuck it up for the mature players, just like in real life and throughout history.

The majority of players will not pay for a war-like situation, because the very fundamental tenet of all good warriors is not to fight a battle that you cannot win unless no other option presents itself. The majority of people who compete want to feel they have an actual chance to win. That is in fundamental opposition to the very basics of military strategy, which says that if you are outnumbered, outgunned and outmaneuvered, you do not fight.

Most people will pay for a game that allows them a chance to win. Open PVP games will not allow the majority of players a chance to win.

The game you want is a niche game, will always be a niche game. There's nothing wrong with niche games, but no one is really making games meant to profit off 10,000 players. Investors want returns in the neighborhood of 50k players minimum.

Jesus Christ, man!  It's not a wine review.

I agree that short-term-unfair situations are fun, as long as there are a few ground rules in place.  Like everyone knows going in that it's going to be short-term unfair.  And that the situation is long-term fair.  Maybe this battle involves trying to hold out against a superior opponent, but there's a good shot that next time you'll be on the other end.

As a concrete example, if you just opened the WoW floodgates for open unscheduled PvP right now, I bet you'd have a 50% Horde unsub or reroll rate within a month.  The population imbalance is incredible, and your vision of gritty, wild partisan warfare with hints of cinnamon would actualize as nothing more than 200 50th level Night Elf hunters camping Crossroads and pelvic thrusting the Horde into oblivion.

It's not an either/or scenario. Even the same game can appeal to both types of PvP players, just on separate servers or in separate game areas.

I don't think anyone is advocating getting rid of free-form PvP from all games. The point is, make some games with other forms of PvP as well - forms that a large number of customers would enjoy as much or more.

I am!  Get rid of it all, even in games I don't play!  Delete Felucca and Trammelize Shadowbane!  CAREBEAR UBER ALLES!

I read both the essay and the posts here pretty deeply, and the one thing that I didn't see anyone even mention that instead of trying to limit the conflict into a set of controlled scenarios (of whatever "flavor" you want--open PvP, instanced "competitions", consentual PvP, whatever)--why not have the wars act as Clauswitz defines--last refuge of a political conflict?

This concept isn't intended to "fix" any of the asshat/griefer issues that the thread brought up, but it is intended to bring the entire concept of physical conflict (up to and including war) to it's most consistent state--simply a means to accomplish a political goal...from land grab to resource denial to ideological conflict, if there is both a reason behind, and a persistent consequence of a conflict/war in the virtual world, the entire argument loses one of it's base assumptions--war is no longer the end, but once again a means to an end.