Stealing Systems

[eldaec]

RvR: I think WoW's world PvP is pretty darn close to RvR, with the addtion of mingled leveling areas.  If you think it's different, how?

Objectives and rewards shared by the realm. Lack of.

Also the lack of set piece concepts like keeps and relics which encourage more than 1 group to work together.

[eldaec]

Odd - I totally notice that every 11th person has the same face as me in CoX.

In <insert game here> I notice way more that every 2nd person from my class and at my level has exactly the same clothing, weapon, size, and colours as I do.

[Jayce]

RvR: I think WoW's world PvP is pretty darn close to RvR, with the addtion of mingled leveling areas.  If you think it's different, how?

Objectives and rewards shared by the realm. Lack of.

Also the lack of set piece concepts like keeps and relics which encourage more than 1 group to work together.

WoW does both, but only on a zone basis.  I can see where realm-wide, long siege, whole realm involved sorta battles like DAOC has can be attractive.  But I think that has its own problems, like relic ninjaing (dunno if that happens) and lag when the whole realm is there to siege a castle (pretty sure that does happen).

Halaa, for example, usually takes a raid to take down, but it changes hands frequently, so it's not as "persistent" as a DAOC relic possession.

[Akkori]

I have to admit to liking the foundation of the skill system in EVE. Kinda hard to catass that, and it rewards those who are loyal (read: pay regularly) to the game.

[Slayerik]

I have to admit to liking the foundation of the skill system in EVE. Kinda hard to catass that, and it rewards those who are loyal (read: pay regularly) to the game.

I think I would like a hybrid of usage and offline gains similar to Eve's system. Something additional in the way of points if you have to grind money anyways...I don't know. Then people will complain its unfair to the casual gamer cause they can only play 3 hours a week. Guess what, pick another genre, whiners :)

[lamaros]

I don't think any game that is fun enough *needs* to have a huge gulf between the respective 'power' levels of a completely new player and one who's being playing for a year. I don't think it rewards new players, casual players, etc.

I think player power level should increase logarithmically, rather than in a linear or exponential fashion. If there isn't enough in the game to make it fun without constant leveling and significant equipment/skill upgrades then it's just not a good game anyway.

[eldaec]

I have to admit to liking the foundation of the skill system in EVE. Kinda hard to catass that, and it rewards those who are loyal (read: pay regularly) to the game.

The really key thing about EVE skills though, is that you can be competitive in one role within a month or two.

After that you are adding alternative ship layouts and roles.

[Akkori]

Yep. The first few level's fly by, relatively speaking. And I also like that it takes away the need to grind for "innate" abilities or skills. While the clock is ticking away, you can just play the damn game.
But I would not subscribe again until there are avatars, a ground game, player housing, and the ability to sit.  :-D

[Trouble]

Catassing in Eve involves having multiple accounts and trading accounts like commodities. From the outside the system seems better but ultimately the hardcores always find a way to be hardcore.

[CharlieMopps]

The problem with PVP games is and has always been... the lack of real conciquences for murder. UO came the closest...

Getting ganked sucks. Usually you have Rez effects. You lose money and maybe equipment. You are interupted from what you are doing.

Ganking people does not suck. In fact, you are at an advantage because you chose your target and have little chance of losing.


So... everyone starts ganking. And the result is no-one pays any attention to the content in the game. They are hust trying to not get ganked, while trying to find someone else to gank.

[damijin]

The problem with PVP games is and has always been... the lack of real conciquences for murder. UO came the closest...

Getting ganked sucks. Usually you have Rez effects. You lose money and maybe equipment. You are interupted from what you are doing.

Ganking people does not suck. In fact, you are at an advantage because you chose your target and have little chance of losing.


So... everyone starts ganking. And the result is no-one pays any attention to the content in the game. They are hust trying to not get ganked, while trying to find someone else to gank.

Quoted for universal truth behind the reason why PvP sucks.

[Slayerik]

Poorly implemented PVP systems suck.

[Jayce]

The problem with PVP games is and has always been... the lack of real conciquences for murder. UO came the closest...

Getting ganked sucks. Usually you have Rez effects. You lose money and maybe equipment. You are interupted from what you are doing.

Ganking people does not suck. In fact, you are at an advantage because you chose your target and have little chance of losing.


So... everyone starts ganking. And the result is no-one pays any attention to the content in the game. They are hust trying to not get ganked, while trying to find someone else to gank.

I submit that not only is your theory wrong, it's stupid and poorly spelled.

I further submit that Slay is wrong too: it doesn't matter whether the PvP is well implemented or poorly, this particular theory is wrong everywhere.

[damijin]

I submit that not only is your theory wrong, it's stupid and poorly spelled.

I further submit that Slay is wrong too: it doesn't matter whether the PvP is well implemented or poorly, this particular theory is wrong everywhere.

But the correct theory is....

Edited because after re-reading I am firmly confused as to how anyone could seriously disagree with "Poorly implemented PvP systems suck.", so I'll just assume you must be insincere.

[Jayce]

I submit that not only is your theory wrong, it's stupid and poorly spelled.

I further submit that Slay is wrong too: it doesn't matter whether the PvP is well implemented or poorly, this particular theory is wrong everywhere.

But the correct theory is....

Editted because after re-reading I am firmly confused as to how anyone could seriously disagree with "Poorly implemented PvP systems suck.", so I'll just assume you must be insincere.

... not typable in 50 words or less, and has been hashed, rehashed, and re-rehashed on these boards and others for years now.

The "everyone descends to the lowest common denominator of ganking" is provably wrong by looking at any number of games, regardless of the impeccability of the logic.

[damijin]

Ah, so you're only disagreeing with the ganking being the lowest common denominator part. I would agree that the entire game never descends to ganking, in fact, in many cases the exact opposite happens, but it's heavily dependent on the community.

However, I think that for the early stages of an MMOs growth, the first days for a new player, the prevalence of ganking creates a severely negative atmosphere, and so I agree that murder should have consequences that it doesn't currently carry in most games. But in the long term, on the large scale, no, the entire game never actually becomes a gank fest.

[Slayerik]

The problem with PVP games is and has always been... the lack of real conciquences for murder. UO came the closest...

Getting ganked sucks. Usually you have Rez effects. You lose money and maybe equipment. You are interupted from what you are doing.

Ganking people does not suck. In fact, you are at an advantage because you chose your target and have little chance of losing.


So... everyone starts ganking. And the result is no-one pays any attention to the content in the game. They are hust trying to not get ganked, while trying to find someone else to gank.

I submit that not only is your theory wrong, it's stupid and poorly spelled.

I further submit that Slay is wrong too: it doesn't matter whether the PvP is well implemented or poorly, this particular theory is wrong everywhere.

I guess I'm kind of referring to PVP as an afterthought as poorly implemented PVP. Like you said though, its getting to be a dead horse. I'm hoping some of the future titles produce something. Are you saying MMO PVP is shit period? Im probably missing your point here.


Lines 2 and 3 of his theory are right on the money though!

The "everyone descends to the lowest common denominator of ganking" is provably wrong by looking at any number of games, regardless of the impeccability of the logic.

And these games are.....? Eve? Oh wait...blobbing. UO? Oh wait, red crews, moongate camping. WoW? Stranglethorn Vale. I mean really, what games that allow world PVP do NOT descend to it?

[Jayce]

Clearly I was confusing, since no one seems to get what I'm saying. I guess that's the price of being snippy.

Here is the thing.  I (and many people I know) never play any game on any server type that does not include some sort of open PvP.  However, I hate ganking.  Maybe it seems weird, but I've tried to enjoy killing someone unprovoked while they are otherwise engaged or don't know I'm there, and it's just boring to me.  No challenge and I get to be an asshole, which I don't like.

However, the possibility of being ganked is a major reason I play these types of servers.  The sense of danger, of looking over my shoulder, and the possibility of ganking the gankers makes playing never boring.

So, am I saying ganking doesn't happen? That's patently ridiculous. But the "theory" as stated is that no one gets anything done (following lore, questing, xping, etc) because open PvP games devolve into persistent Quake in short order.  That also is patently ridiculous, and sounds to me like it was formulated in a moment of frustration after being spawn camped in some game or another that allows that, and not having the guts or creativity to adapt.

If the PvP is well-implemented, obviously that's great. However even if it's not, people still get things done not related to ganking.  For example, the early days of AC Darktide.  There were all kinds of glaring imbalances, but I never ganked but did have lots of fun avoiding the gankers, holding towns and points of interest, leveling, following the in-game lore, etc.

I guess I agree with the statement out of context ("Poorly implemented PVP systems suck") but in context of the preceding two posts it sounded like you were saying "rampant ganking only happens when the PvP is poorly implemented".

[pxib]

...the "theory" as stated is that no one gets anything done (following lore, questing, xping, etc) because open PvP games devolve into persistent Quake in short order.

Yes, that seemed like overreaching to me as well... but this bit is solid (I paraphrase):

The problem with PVP games is the lack of real conciquences for murder.

Getting ganked sucks: Rez effects, possible loss of money and equipment, at the very least a gameplay interruption.

Ganking people does not suck. In fact, the agressor has the advantage because she can chose her target.

In five seconds some high-level ganker can make you waste half an hour. They risk almost nothing, and levy tangible sacrifices. Worse still, at a chemical level there are at least two kinds of fear: the thrill that makes us excited and the dread that makes us sick. Anybody who dreads PvP is going to be physiologically miserable at exactly the same moments that you're on an adrenaline high. Despite your own disinterest in ganking, I'm going to assume that most gankers experience the same sort of thrills that you do when they have to look over their shoulders... so making murderers into hunted fugitives actually rewards them!

To risk overstating the obvious, it is more fun to gank than to be ganked.

So not only does the victim feel awful, but he knows his misery is somebody else's fun. It is a rare few who enjoy that sort of trade for long.

[TheDreamr]

I have to admit to liking the foundation of the skill system in EVE. Kinda hard to catass that, and it rewards those who are loyal (read: pay regularly) to the game.

Sorry to jump back a couple of days, but you touched on something which always irked me...  while it's very true that the time-and-attributes training mechanic used by EVE can't be catassed directly you've overlooked the degree to which money can influence the training system, which allows the training process to be catassed indirectly (or via RMT).

Then there's my real issue; despite the advantages of a time-based character development system vs systems which require an xp grind, you still get a significant number of people choosing RMT to fund things their playing style can't support (as they can develop high-level skills without ever engaging in high-level gameplay), and so it comes back to "there must be a better way".

[Surlyboi]

Clearly I was confusing, since no one seems to get what I'm saying. I guess that's the price of being snippy.

Here is the thing.  I (and many people I know) never play any game on any server type that does not include some sort of open PvP.  However, I hate ganking.  Maybe it seems weird, but I've tried to enjoy killing someone unprovoked while they are otherwise engaged or don't know I'm there, and it's just boring to me.  No challenge and I get to be an asshole, which I don't like.

And Jayce, that's you. I applaud that, but for every player like you, there's about a dozen l33t kiddies that just wanna whack-a-mole on the weak and unsuspecting because it's their chance to be the badasses they'll never be in real life.

However, the possibility of being ganked is a major reason I play these types of servers.  The sense of danger, of looking over my shoulder, and the possibility of ganking the gankers makes playing never boring.

To each their own.

So, am I saying ganking doesn't happen? That's patently ridiculous. But the "theory" as stated is that no one gets anything done (following lore, questing, xping, etc) because open PvP games devolve into persistent Quake in short order.  That also is patently ridiculous, and sounds to me like it was formulated in a moment of frustration after being spawn camped in some game or another that allows that, and not having the guts or creativity to adapt.

If the PvP is well-implemented, obviously that's great. However even if it's not, people still get things done not related to ganking.  For example, the early days of AC Darktide.  There were all kinds of glaring imbalances, but I never ganked but did have lots of fun avoiding the gankers, holding towns and points of interest, leveling, following the in-game lore, etc.

I guess I agree with the statement out of context ("Poorly implemented PVP systems suck") but in context of the preceding two posts it sounded like you were saying "rampant ganking only happens when the PvP is poorly implemented".

I would kill (no pun intended) for a good, well-balanced persistant PVP world, where territory and property can be gained and lost, but there are real and lasting penalties for being a douche.

[Jayce]

I would kill (no pun intended) for a good, well-balanced persistant PVP world, where territory and property can be gained and lost, but there are real and lasting penalties for being a douche.

I think you need to add to this:  "... and I get to decide who's a douche"

[Surlyboi]

Not just me. The great unwashed masses that play the game. That includes you too. I steal your stuff and shit on your dog, there should be consequences if I'm caught. If there isn't, then the malcontents set on justifying their inner thug will do so until they get bored and their victims will quit before that. Sure, there'll be the occasional vigilante and/or honorable player that will show a few of them what for, but he or she will be in the minority.

[qedetc]

Not just me. The great unwashed masses that play the game....

Sure, there'll be the occasional vigilante and/or honorable player that will show a few of them what for, but he or she will be in the minority.

then it seems the majority of these unwashed masses don't mind enough to bother.

how would the game differentiate between a douche and an honourable executor of justice?  that perception is often dominated by the personalities of the people involved as well as the circumstances of the kill; the reality is intention and circumstance.  a game can hardly measure intention, and keeping track of the complexity of circumstance is likely beyond reach.  so ultimately, players have to make that judgment (and they do, whether or not they act on it then).  anything else has to supplement player self-policing, and in most cases, there will likely be some trade-off between helpfulness and the possibility of error.

if pvp is implemented and people within it do undesirable things and go unpunished there are three possibilities i see right now:
a) it's not that undesirable
b) there isn't enough incentive to correct it
c) there are insufficient means to correct it efficiently

these are essentially the same thing: a matter of perceived cost and profit to the players (in currency, time, or fun), with the exception of c being perhaps the inability to correct it.

[Nebu]

I like lists.

1) There is often little to no penalty for bad behavior.

2) Anonymity that the internet grants will only enhance the liklihood of bad behavior, particularly if that bad behavior is rewarded by some ill conceived game mechanic. 

3) Players that behave badly are often untouchable within the game system.  There is no player enforceability of any kind.

4) Players will always find a way around the rules imposed by the game developers. 

5) It's often too expensive to fix 4) so it becomes an accepted game mechanic. 

6) The minority in PvP games will do their best to ruin the fun of the majority. 

Add a few more yourselves.  PvP creates interplayer conflict.  That will always introduce new dynamics to the game.  Some are enjoyable and some just suck. 

[Slayerik]

One thing I liked about Neocron's Pluto server was.... 1 character only. This creates in game social penalties for being a douchebag. They were pretty well kept in check.

[Jayce]

I like lists.

1) There is often little to no penalty for bad behavior.

2) Anonymity that the internet grants will only enhance the liklihood of bad behavior, particularly if that bad behavior is rewarded by some ill conceived game mechanic. 

3) Players that behave badly are often untouchable within the game system.  There is no player enforceability of any kind.

4) Players will always find a way around the rules imposed by the game developers. 

5) It's often too expensive to fix 4) so it becomes an accepted game mechanic. 

6) The minority in PvP games will do their best to ruin the fun of the majority. 

Add a few more yourselves.  PvP creates interplayer conflict.  That will always introduce new dynamics to the game.  Some are enjoyable and some just suck. 

I think it might be endemic that you have to take the enjoyable with the suck.  Because of 3, if you add enforceability you run afoul of 4 and the enforceability ends up being used against you.  Then 5 takes over.

Still, there's an easy workaround:  don't be a whiner.   

[Nebu]

Still, there's an easy workaround:  don't be a whiner.   

I'd argue that the workaround is: don't be a dick unnecessarily.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Jayce]

Still, there's an easy workaround:  don't be a whiner.   

I'd argue that the workaround is: don't be a dick unnecessarily.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

No, I agree that that's a good workaround too.  If you can get everyone else to do it too.  My suggestion only necessitates action by me.

[SansWetware]

AC:  I remember loving to explore this game.  After I had played a while I journeyed south and my friend told me "Whoa, you're going to Kara?  There's like a cult down there or something!"  Sure enough, when I finally managed to get all the way down to Kara I met a group who only lived in Kara and were perfectly fine logging in just to be in Kara.  I want a game that promotes settling and staking your claim and makes exploration rewarding and risky again.
   
AO:  The success of the places in their game that existed solely for fun social interraction.  The clubs and whatnot.  I would like to see a game implement a robust system that promoted things/places like that "between the big raids." 


Perhaps, in regards to PvP, make clans/guilds a VERY serious venture.  Have the game keep track of how many times a Hatfield has killed a McCoy.  Integrate NPC's that recognize this difference and give them some way to distinguish a Hatfield from a McCoy in a meaningful way.  "I'd give you the pink fuzzle, but you guys have been getting pummeled by the McCoy's - and I just don't work with losers."  Perhaps not that severe, but system in a similar light.

Also, a in a serious PvP game, I do not think it is logical to make a PvE game where beating the PvE content depends on certain classes or people showing up.  Design goals that are not about finding the right mix of healing/dps/support/tanking.  In EVE, for example, most ships are either shooty, or facilitate the shootiness.  This way a player does not have to decide whether or not they want to suck at PvP or suck at PvE.  Characters should be "uniquely similar."