Relatively new site on MMOG theory and design.

[Lindorn]

In the situations we are describing I would take politics to mean interaction between organized groups of people.  (guilds interacting with guilds, etc).  Politics is the interaction on the micro level (within) between the population of an organized player group and on the macro level, between those groups as entities.

My overall point with saying what I have been is that players need motivation to interact with each other in an organized way.  (That isn't to say they won't on a smaller level otherwise).  In world of warcraft for example you have individuals vying for gear, power, etc.  Therefore a political dynamic exists within the guild.  However like I said earlier all guilds have equal opportunity access to the same content, therefore there is no necessity for them to deal with each other politically.  This is why in WoW there is no politics on the macro level in my opinion.

[Chenghiz]

I just had a good discussion with a friend because I was confused and we basically came up with that answer. Anyway I still think having fully open nonrestricted PVP is a mistake but time will tell.

[Arthur_Parker]

There are corporations in Eve Online that are highly involved in the political environment that exist in "empire" space where the option for "FFA" PvP doesn't exist.  And if you want to argue that someone could suffer the wrath of concord and kill anyway I'd argue that there is a miniscule impact by the "threat" of this.  Even war decs for most random guilds are a non issue.  So while I do believe social institutions are a natural result of human behavior I also believe that most of that is motivated by scarcity of some kind.

Yes exactly, see that's why I asked you to elaborate on Darkfalls system, are they planning for safe area's & factions etc.

I should have said "conflict" is the primary result of scarcity in resources, instead of politics.  Because as you say politics can occur in most environments.  It is politics that puts a reign on those conflicts by default....therefore indirectly resulting from "scarcity".  So I will concede that what I should have said is "conflict" not politics.  However politics exist solely to bring order to the chaos of conflict.

Ok, that's a lot better.

"The players make choices about how to deal with each other and that in turn affects the game world", it's nice fluff but it can be shortened to just "FFA PVP", the rest comes naturally."

I don't believe this is true.  If the world were fractioned or instanced even with the implementation of PvP you wouldn't see this kind of gameplay....so your deduction that FFA PvP is the sole reason that all player politics occur is not accurate in my opinion.  There was no "fluff" about what I said.  If you don't like that type of gameplay I don't blame you or anyone else for that matter.  However like I said earlier I'm exploring the concepts, and I'd like to think I've done my homework.

It is fluff, it's the fluff they will try to use to get people interested in Darkfall, because territory control allows players to do all that nifty ecomonic & world affecting stuff as a direct result of the FFA PVP system.  Yes, If the world had factions, instances or safe zones it wouldn't have the same kind of gameplay which just reinforces my point.  I also didn't say FFA was the sole reason for all player politics, I just said FFA naturally creates player politics which you disagreed with.

It doesn't matter if I like a full FFA system or not, it's a niche market, personally I think they should have a central "safe" area like Eve.  That's because as I said earlier they are restricting their market for no good reason, you aren't going to argue over 90% of players hate FFA PVP are you?  How else would you explain trammel?

[WindupAtheist]

That's because as I said earlier they are restricting their market for no good reason, you aren't going to argue over 90% of players hate FFA PVP are you?  How else would you explain trammel?

All hands to battlestations!  This is not a drill!

[Slayerik]

I just had a good discussion with a friend because I was confused and we basically came up with that answer. Anyway I still think having fully open nonrestricted PVP is a mistake but time will tell.

No MMO is or will be 'fully open non-restricted PVP'. Rules are forced on you by the community, be it guild standings and/or the fact that you will get ganked if you leave home alone. You dont fuck with your neighbor, as long as they are like minded. Mistakes can cause wars. Players create their own restrictions, cause even for hardcore PVP guys everyone needs a rest.

Fully open turns into GvG warfare, but with far more politics and intrigue. See Eve, and to a less extent UO.

There should always be a safe area. You make much less money in safe areas, but you can get back on your feet. This was the same for UO. You could go turn dough into french bread in complete safety and make a little money if you wanted to. You fight for control of the rich areas. Its basic shit. It works. I'm still not sure whats so hard to understand about it.

Oh yeah, it's FUN as well. If you're not a pussy.

[Slayerik]

I will say that 90% of players don't like FFA PVP.

90% of that number have never tried it.

90% of that number wouldn't like it.

90% of you are as confused as I am at this point.

90% of you wish I would just STFU already.

[schild]

90% of you wish I would just STFU already.

HAH. WRONG GOOD SIR. MOAR LIEK 100%.

[Slayerik]

90% of you wish I would just STFU already.

HAH. WRONG GOOD SIR. MOAR LIEK 100%.

Chalk one up for schildy!

[Yegolev]

Sup.   OpenPVP needs a less-steep learning curve.  People probably hate it because they are assraped into unsubscribing by the old guard.

[Wolf]

Aye, but half the fun for the old guard is assraping teh noob into unsubbing.

[EvilJohn]

Aye, but half the fun for the old guard is assraping teh noob into unsubbing.

Brings to mind the old symbol of the serpent eating itself (circle, head consuming tail).

[Venkman]

Anyway I still think having fully open nonrestricted PVP is a mistake but time will tell.

Time has told this. It's not a "mistake" in the literal sense. It just has very narrow appeal. This has mostly been because the game mechanics in an open PvP environment within statistics-based games really benefit those with a lot more time to play and manage their stats than those who do not*. To counter the time advantage, games have gotten more contrived, to the point where either the game is a market niche with a very dedicated playerbase (Eve) or PvP is devolved to mere sport (WoW).

* Sorry for the specificity of that sentence. But I feel the lack of FFA PvP traction is at odds with very concept of longterm statistical and holdings growth for the type of player attracted to the latter experience.

[Slayerik]

Anyway I still think having fully open nonrestricted PVP is a mistake but time will tell.

Time has told this. It's not a "mistake" in the literal sense. It just has very narrow appeal. This has mostly been because the game mechanics in an open PvP environment within statistics-based games really benefit those with a lot more time to play and manage their stats than those who do not*. To counter the time advantage, games have gotten more contrived, to the point where either the game is a market niche with a very dedicated playerbase (Eve) or PvP is devolved to mere sport (WoW).

* Sorry for the specificity of that sentence. But I feel the lack of FFA PvP traction is at odds with very concept of longterm statistical and holdings growth for the type of player attracted to the latter experience.

Does anyone else agree that EvE has earned the right to NOT be called niche ? If Eve is niche, then so is EQ2, UO, DAOC, etc according to subs.  I know 3 other guys here at work that play. 2 PVP and 1 is a carebear. Everyone else plays WoW.

[Merusk]

Eve is not niche.

0.0 gameplay IS.. so long as 2/3 of the playerbase still inhabits .5 and up.

[Slayerik]

Eve is not niche.

0.0 gameplay IS.. so long as 2/3 of the playerbase still inhabits .5 and up.

True dat.

[Chenghiz]

I just had a good discussion with a friend because I was confused and we basically came up with that answer. Anyway I still think having fully open nonrestricted PVP is a mistake but time will tell.

No MMO is or will be 'fully open non-restricted PVP'. Rules are forced on you by the community, be it guild standings and/or the fact that you will get ganked if you leave home alone.

I was referring to the game itself, not its playerbase.

[Slayerik]

I just had a good discussion with a friend because I was confused and we basically came up with that answer. Anyway I still think having fully open nonrestricted PVP is a mistake but time will tell.

No MMO is or will be 'fully open non-restricted PVP'. Rules are forced on you by the community, be it guild standings and/or the fact that you will get ganked if you leave home alone.

I was referring to the game itself, not its playerbase.

And I was telling you that games like shadowbane aren't fully open non-restricted PVP.  Unless you liked starting wars.

Its all fine and dandy to have a ruleset, I'm just saying its the players of the game that turn out to decide what some of the rules are in such an open environment. To me, those are usually the most enjoyable PVP scenarios.

[Venkman]

If Eve is niche, then so is EQ2, UO, DAOC, etc according to subs.

It's all about the competitive set and the aggregate size of the genre (which has grown by a lot in the West and is now finally understood to be way very much larger than it was measured even two years ago). EQ2 was designed (resourced) to be more successful than it was, or they'd not have gutted core gameplay things at Pub 19/20. UO was absolutely a success at launch, then overshadowed by EQ1. DAoC absolutely was a success at launch, though never surpassed EQ1, and it did become something for a specific niche playerbase later. I've said before that CCP would love numbers that SOE would consider a "failure" (for being below expectations). That Eve is surpassing some of the those numbers is great for them. But one could argue that's more about SOE missing their mark.

Meanwhile, Eve has grown. They have expanded by attracting more players, just as WoW expanded the genre by attracting more players to an EQ1-like experience. But they have not gone omfgmass either. I don't feel Eve is casual in any real sense. The very UI itself screams investment on orders not required for a WoW or GW, and walking an avatar around isn't going to change that.

But this isn't the first time I've overthought something ;)

[Lindorn]

Slayerik, I think things are changing.  I think players are becoming more and more accustomed and interested in social based emergent gameplay as opposed to the "carrot on a stick" stuff we keep seeing in the mainstream.  People keep screaming niche! niche! niche!  It's just adversity to change...the market has it and so do the players in my opinion.  If gamers really hated PvP so much you wouldn't see the monumental success in games like Counterstrike that encourage this type of gameplay.  I don't believe the average WoW player is indicative of the overall MMORPG game population (there are surveys in which the majority of WoW players state that it's their first MMO and that they wouldn't play another).

At any rate people have been screaming for years that Eve is a niche game, the problem is games like Eve are going to slowly gobble up these other types of games over time (in my opinion).  I think it just requires a degree of acclamation for the populous.

This whole idea that FFA PvP (I don't like the term FFA btw) favors people with more time is ludicrous.  How can you possibly think that an FFA PvP model favors time over skill more than the mainstream "grind/gear" models all around you?  When people say this it just blows my mind.

[WindupAtheist]

If gamers really hated PvP so much you wouldn't see the monumental success in games like Counterstrike that encourage this type of gameplay.

All those Counterstrike kids want is a quick disposable killfest without consequence, not some 24/7 persistent territorial free-looting gankfest.  In other words, something far more similar to a WoW battleground than what you're thinking of.  And fuck you for making me point this out on these boards yet again.

This whole idea that FFA PvP (I don't like the term FFA btw) favors people with more time is ludicrous.  How can you possibly think that an FFA PvP model favors time over skill more than the mainstream "grind/gear" models all around you?  When people say this it just blows my mind.

Go read in the EVE war thread about "alarm clock ops" and "mandatory ops" and the importance of timezones, then get back to us.

[Merusk]

This whole idea that FFA PvP (I don't like the term FFA btw) favors people with more time is ludicrous.  How can you possibly think that an FFA PvP model favors time over skill more than the mainstream "grind/gear" models all around you?  When people say this it just blows my mind.

In addition to what WUA just pointed out, the type of PVP you've been discussing here favors time over skill for one singular reason.  Control of resources.   The guy who can stay on longer wins every time.  Kicking his ass with your leet skills? He'll just hide until you logout, then take the resources when you're gone.  You see this in Planetside on a daily basis and in EVE all over the place.

Also, if you aren't considering WOW players your average player, then the market for PVP of any type kind of takes a nosedive in the MMO realm.  I'd rather think that WOW shows how popular PVP can be when it's relatively consequence-free for the loser.  Much like Counterstrike.

[lamaros]

Arthur has it right here.

The reason WoW doesn't have guild politics is because nearly everything (at upper levels of importance) is instanced.

Outdoor world bosses had Politics.

Which we can also call "scarcity of resources" and all agree with each other, at a point. But you're taking the issue a few steps further along the line. Land is a rescource. Being able to not get killed every three seconds is a rescource (call it "life"?), etc. You don't need certain specific rescources to be created for the players.

Though I think you need to account for persistance. In Arthur's island example if you have a new island and a new group of players every day politics will be constantly reset and never develop. (Unless you might consider 'bragging rights' outside the gameworld itself a rescource - I'm sure we can come up with other examples also)

The more persistent the rescources to more likely you are to get more political developments. This is where the game design for "social blah blah" would come in.

ALSO:

social based emergent gameplay

King Pussy is sounding like that other retard with his nonsense words of a while back.

Think about what you say and don't use stupid fucking expressions like that. Or you will keep getting cockstabbed.

[lamaros]

It doesn't matter if I like a full FFA system or not, it's a niche market, personally I think they should have a central "safe" area like Eve.  That's because as I said earlier they are restricting their market for no good reason, you aren't going to argue over 90% of players hate FFA PVP are you?  How else would you explain trammel?

I think the main starter city(s) were protected rather notably by the faction system and etc, so along the lines of a "safe" city if not 100%. Though I havn't paid much mind to Darkfall in a couple of years and it might have changed..

[Chenghiz]

Land isn't a resource unless it contains resources. Otherwise it's just a place to be.

[lamaros]

Land isn't a resource unless it contains resources. Otherwise it's just a place to be.

You're using a very literal interpretation of the word (or, a specific interpretation) that isn't 100% true. Nor is it overly applicable giving the conversation that I was refering to.

[Arthur_Parker]

This whole idea that FFA PvP (I don't like the term FFA btw) favors people with more time is ludicrous.  How can you possibly think that an FFA PvP model favors time over skill more than the mainstream "grind/gear" models all around you?  When people say this it just blows my mind.

What do you mean you don't like the term FFA?  You don't like the term so you can ignore all the negative factors that come with it, while talking up the positive world changing aspects?  You say you have a lot of faith in Darkfall, which doesn't have any truly safe areas (apparently even the starter cities can be attacked right?).  So you want to want to refer to FFA as "social based emergent gameplay", that's great, whatever floats your boat.  But without safe areas or a lot of friends, a new or casual player can not compete or even hide from players who have invested more time in the game.  More time invested means more advantages, more friends, better equipment, better skills, increased knowledge of the game.  All MMORPGs favour time over skill and they all have grinding even the skill based ones.

[Stephen Zepp]

ALSO:

social based emergent gameplay

King Pussy is sounding like that other retard with his nonsense words of a while back.

Think about what you say and don't use stupid fucking expressions like that. Or you will keep getting cockstabbed.

Not trying to be rude, but you might want to back off a bit. It's an excellent description of a phenomenon first seen in EQ 1 (from my perspective at least), and demonstrated extremely strongly in ShadowBane, and currently Eve.

The "politics" around wars, events, and subterfuge that happen external to the game itself (forums mostly) is almost certainly social based emergent gameplay, and just because you don't like the term doesn't mean it's wrong.

[schild]

Or it's ridiculously e-peeny phrase to describe "PEOPLE DOING NORMAL SHIT BUT IN GAMES."

Just because guns and lasers and other various shit is involved doesn't mean it's groundbreaking or deserving of some Terra-Nova-y phrase.

[Venkman]

If gamers really hated PvP so much you wouldn't see the monumental success in games like Counterstrike that encourage this type of gameplay.

To reiterate, it's not about PvP unto itself, or there'd be no FPS, RTS nor Sports genres at all, nor the modding community. Rather, it's about PvP within the contrived meant-for-PvE rulesets that come from the RPG days. You can get better at an FPS game. You can only acquire better in an RPG one. That means a different type of competitive environment , with different people having different advantages. In some cases, those advantages are insurmountable (ie, you can't invent more hours of the day and most normal people don't get fired nor divorced to gain advantage). In others, there's a belief that can be (ie, if I practice FPS games enough, I can evolve beyond fodder).

So it's not about hating PvP. It's about hating the type of PvP, for the environment it is in.

Think about what you say and don't use stupid fucking expressions like that. (about social based emergent gameplay)

Ok, so "social based emergent game play" is sorta redundant, but otherwise it's spot on. Every game has rules, but MMOs are rules within worlds. Developers cannot anticipate everything a player will try in an offline game. Imagine trying to foresee what a few thousand people can do concurrently. Heck, the main reason, as you note, why politics are slightly less in WoW is because the whole world is smaller, by virtue of being almost completely compartmentalized for groups far smaller than the thousands vying for that FBSS.

[Murgos]

Social based emergent gameplay?  Maybe emergent social behavior is more apt?

Emergent is just a five dollar word for natural behavior dictated by the combination of simple rules though.  The classic example is bird flocking.  Birds flock because they have simple rules about distance that they follow when in a group.  People forming a line to get through a doorway is another common example.

Yes, you put people in a group and you get group behavior.  Include scare resources and people work together to share the resources amongst themselves to the exclusion of others.   Um, duh?  See my third grade World History teacher if you want to learn where to start.

King Pussy threw that out there like it was some new paradigm of amazing.  Really it's yet another buzzword.  That it happens isn't as surprising as the apparent number of people who fail(ed) to expect it to happen.  Fuck, the entire CONCEPT of MMO is that "We shall create a framework wherein people shall experience emergent social behavior".

Sorry, 'social based emergent gameplay' as a term is a (redundant) failure to understand even the basic premise of WHAT A GAME IS.

[HaemishM]

But it's a phrase that synergizes the paradigmatic shift of virtual interactive possibility spaces.

[schild]

But it's a phrase that synergizes the paradigmatic shift of virtual interactive possibility spaces.

[schild]

I'm still standing by my definition of people doing normal shit in a game.

You can challenge me on that.

But you'd be wrong.

Raids are jobs. Your equipment is the furnishing on your house. And guild fees, auction house, etc are taxes. Also, you Start and Level 1 and Die at some indeterminate age. Everything inbetween is just normal shit also. Arguments, etc. And they mean less than deciding what you're gonna have for dinner tonight. Even if that decision changes the entire economic focus of Eve, EATING is still more important.

MMOGs are fucking broken, as-is. You can assign whatever word you want to that shit. And I'll still be right.

[Venkman]

I'm surprised you still allow yourself to post about MMOGs :)

And I can't believe four chosen words have generated even this much conversation. Dislike the guy or whatever, but the fact is that the reason it's a relatively new term is because most people don't crack open a history book to see the easy and stupidly-obvious connections between all the new-shiny-never-seen-before behaviors that happen and crap they were doing in Jericho (the real one). There are no firsts. Ever. The idea that "new to them" means "new to everyone" is so pervasive in our culture though I've long since stopped getting pissed about it.

[schild]

I'm actually not pissed that chumbag over here thinks it's new.

I'm pissed that he used Business 2.0 style fuckery to describe "DOING NORMAL SHIT."