Gaming: Levels of Separation

[Alluvian]

^^ What kaid said.  Basically summed up what I was trying to say abit better.

[schmoo]

Stop showing character advancement as levels.  Make it more complicated than that, such as a matrix of various skill advancements, reputation, karma, whatever.  Make it so that content is unlocked for advancement in each component of the advancement matrix in some byzantine convoluted manner so as to confuse and confound the number cruncher players.  Hide the numbers. Keep the time-based advancement if you must, I don't care.

Just don't fucking make me level up a character ever again in a MMOG.

[HaemishM]

I have a question about that.

What exactly do you feel you have "accomplished" when you play a game?

[Typhon]

In movies they call it suspension of disbelief.  Same principle applies here.  For a player who has a marvelous talent for suspension of disbelief, he feels he 'accomplished' character growth.  He (through his in-game avatar) got alittle bit more powerful, a little closer to being the dragon slayer at the end of the story.

For players who wonder 'what grandeur' because all they see is a screen filled with pixels and numbers to crunch - you have an incredible talent for no suspension of disbelief.  Stop playing video games immediately and contact the IRS, you'd make a very good tax auditor.

For games with an insurmountable barrier to disbelief (aka, 'teh suq') or for gamers with no buy-in to the game world, there is no accomplishment.  Given your previous quote, I'm guessing you get this, but you're looking for other's opinions on the topic.

I see little self analysis in these posts.  Yeah, a bunch of games that have come out aren't good.  But neither was EQ, or UO, when they launched, yet we still played them, and for awhile (sometimes very long whiles), we liked them.  Could it be that you're older now, not as willing to suspend disbelief and yet not willing to move on?  We pick over the bones of these games, we arm-chair develop, but when is the last time any of us stopped to think whether we're different?

[schmoo]

Dunno that I feel I have 'accomplished' anything, except maybe managing to waste some time in an enjoyable way.  Do I have to 'accomplish' something to have fun, to be entertained, to be social in a fun and limited way with others who want the same?

[Jacob0883]

I have played 5 MMOG's: UO, AC, EQ, SB, and DAOC. Only one of those games did anything for me. That game was UO. The reason this is so true is because I never once joined a game when it first came out. I wouldn't start playing it until 2 or 3 years later. What I am getting to is that the way the level system works kills the "late bloomers" chances of playing the game. Not only the level system, but the expansions. Everyone loves new content, but I don't think the addition of thousands of new lands every couple of months is an order. I wasn't able to level in any of these games because no one was in my newbie level zones. It is impossible to solo in some of these games. I didn't start UO until 2000 and I was able to 7 gm in it. You didn't have to fight rats now, go to the oasis at this level, then to some other land. You could fight tons of different things and you could get to different places without having to die millions of times (Being able to outrun stuff is important too). I could always find people in UO.  Basically, the level system works if you keep up with most people, if not, then well a new game will come out where you can try to keep with the best of them... again.

[Velorath]

I have to admit as a PnP player, I don't really roleplay all that much.  I have a general idea of who my character is, and I decide my actions with that in mind, but I never played with too many people who REALLY stayed in character throughout the whole session.  That being said, I think there were two things about PnP games that everyone I played with enjoyed.  The character building, which often involved hours upon hours of looking through every supplement at every spell, ability, or piece of equipment and weighing them against each other was one thing.  Most major RPG's put out so many supplements with so many optional abilities, that you could customize your character hundreds of ways at creation, and have hundreds more ways to customize them as you leveled.

The other thing we all found fun was trying to come up with some clever way to get out of each situation.  Oh sure, we all did our fair share of hack and slash, but we were always trying to come up with overly elaborate ways to vanquish our foes.  We'd bluff our way past people, lure enemies into an ambush, dress up in defeated enemies uniforms, use dead bodies as human shields, and that sort of thing.  Levels were important, but smart players could usually come up with ways to defeat enemies that completely outpowered them.

The problem with MMORPG's is that they haven't advanced far enough to allow that sort of thing.  Even the games with the most character customization don't come anywhere close to D&D 3.5 with the various supplements available, or Shadowrun (which I'd love to see an MMORPG of if done right).  And no MMOPRG right now can ever give you the sheer amount of gameplay choices a PnP RPG gives you.  You want to get past that guard?  Pull him to the group and kill him.  No xp for sneaking around him and avoiding an encounter.  No xp for charming him and sending him off somewhere else.  Can't cast invisible on the thief who then moves silently over and slits the guards throat for a one hit kill.  Can't even roll a flaming barrel down the hallway at him while throwing flasks of oil in his direction.  You don't get any of the good plots and characters you'd get out of a novel or a single-player RPG eitlher.  So all your left with is the socializing (if the game and server you are on has a good communtiy) and the leveling.  

I think these games need to start making people think rather than allowed them to hit a couple buttons while looking back and forth from the TV to the monitor for hours.  Now that instancing is become standard, maybe they can make instanced dungeons and missions randomly generated as well to keep people from relying on walkthroughs, maps and strategy guides.  Make situations that are impossible to just pull and kill your way through, because maybe you don't know what's on the other side of that doorway that's going to hear you fighting outside.  Make a game where you can progress as much by avoiding some fights as you can by killing everything in the dungeon.

And let me just throw in one pet peeve of mine in here.  If you're going to put quests in a game make them fucking interesting!  There was a point when I was playing FFXI when I got that stupid hat advertising quest in Windurst and I'm thinking to myself "I don't recall ever reading a fantasy novel where the one of the main characters spends a chapter advertising hats for a hat store.  I wonder if that's because the authors all realized that taking a hat around town and showing it to everyone isn't in any way adventerous or exciting".   I don't want to escape from rl in a game for a while to play a character who is a shill for the hat shop, or who goes around collecting fucking stamps for 100g.

[Pug]

To restate the obvious, role-play largely involves playing a role in an interactive and ongoing story line.

Since you can't impact the story of any current MMOLGs in a meaningful way, you can't really role-play in a MMOLG. At best you can read or act out parts of a predetermined story where your input has little if any matter to the rest of the people playing the same MASSIVELY MULTI PLAYER game. Role-play in MMOLGs isn't common because it isn't really possible.

Instancing is taking MMOLGs in the wrong direction. Sure, it sounds like a good idea since instancing can allow players to do things that current MMOLGs don't... like deforestation... but it's only a matter of time before players realize that instancing hasn't solved any problems and they may as well be playing a single player game.

Explain to me how being able to completely escape player interaction is good for a massively multi player game. Why does it need to be massively multi player if all I'm doing is soloing in an instanced area?

Open PvP in a MMOLG is a welcome step toward the MMOLG holy grail of reintroduing role-play as an activity. What better way is there to impact other players than to kill their characters? Emotions bubble over, words are exchanged before, during and after, and events unfold because of what players are doing.

If you don't kill people in a FPS then what is there to do? PvP isn't a stand alone solution to the MMOLG role-play delimma. There needs to be meaningful interaction beyond kill kill kill. Open PvP is great for introducing player interaction but if you don't give players something else or something that is as fun to do as kill others then it's all they will do... and that's not a good basis for a functional society that needs to support a variety of roles rather than focus on only hero and murderer.

Ideally players would be strongly encouraged to play the roles of the inhabitants and follow general lore guidelines. If your an Elf then you need to play the role of an Elf by helping your bretheren and killing any Ork that crosses your path. The trick is in getting players to play the roles of the world's inhabitants without allowing your world to seem either chaotic from random killing or artificial due to too many unreasonable coded restrictions.

I personally believe that it all comes down to player accountability. I believe that players can be guided into role-play without the need for coded restrictions if the game can hold players accountable for their actions. Along with accountability, players also need the ability to punish other players. Real life punishment of permanent death and imprisonment doesn't exist in MMOLGs. You can't have a functional society without a means to enforce decency.

FPS games use vote-kicking to enforce accountability with a high degree of success. Maybe MMOLGs could use something similar in the form of player ran towns and player maintained KOS lists. Being a jerk can get you banned from controlled towns which would make your life tougher just like being a jerk in a FPS can get you banned from a player ran server.

So to bring role-play into MMOLGs we need more freedom and accountability. We also need to accept that the story isn't about us and our impact on the world so much as the groups of players that define our world. Maybe then being involved in virtual politics and working for a virtual cause would be more fun than grinding. Who cares what level you are, are you with me or against me? Can you spare some of your time to help my cause? Will you share in my organizatin's victories as well as our defeat? Good, this is what I need from you...

UO and Lineage were on to something. EQ has distracted us by forcing us to focus on game mechanics rather than playing. Thank god I don't care more about what weapon I get or what my honor is in America's Army than fragging my opponents, completing a mission and avoiding friendly fire. Maybe someone will make a MMOLG that is fun to play.

[shiznitz]

On the accomplishment question, that does not drive me at all.  When I play single player games, I feel no impetus to actually finish the game. I play them until they get boring or repetitive. This has been the same for MMOGs with the large caveat that I will tolerate repetitive play much longer to play with people I like.  

EQ has a strong social pull and enough content to soften the reptitive gameplay. For me, the only accomplishment was keeping up with friends. I played less than most of them, so I was always shooting for the most efficient exp to narrow the gap. I had no time (or inclination, frankly) to tradeskill.  When I quit EQ the first time, it was because in game friends had scattered to the four winds and I fell behind in levels during the summer when I chose to not play for 15-20 hours on the weekends.

UO interest was driven by the novelty and playing with my brothers in LA while I was in NY. When they stopped playing, I stopped playing. When they restarted, I restarted. I macroed occasianally, hitting 3XGM once. The game was lots of fun at all stages, but playing it wasn't about accomplishing anything.

[Xilren's Twin]

For games with an insurmountable barrier to disbelief (aka, 'teh suq') or for gamers with no buy-in to the game world, there is no accomplishment.  

I'd agree with this.  I even think that most players start their expeirence in a new game wanting to buy-in to the world, but all to often that wears off rapidly (hence my 2 week comment).  Why?  Well primarily b/c the very mechanics of the game itself actively undermine the immersion you are trying to achieve.

I see little self analysis in these posts.  Yeah, a bunch of games that have come out aren't good.  But neither was EQ, or UO, when they launched, yet we still played them, and for awhile (sometimes very long whiles), we liked them.  Could it be that you're older now, not as willing to suspend disbelief and yet not willing to move on?  We pick over the bones of these games, we arm-chair develop, but when is the last time any of us stopped to think whether we're different?

Oh, there's no question we as players are different; hell just by virture that we even come to websites like this and hold these discussions puts us in a very differnt gamer-life-stage than someone who just started their first mmorpg yesterday with FFXI.  And yes, I know I am much less willing to suspend belief simply because I'm now one of the "smarts" (i.e. we've seen behind the curtain and know how the thing works).  To keep to the film theme we're more like film critics than regular movie goers.

But, IMHO even those brand new players will slowly move through the same sort of cycle over time.  What are the possible outcomes after they become mature mmorpg players? They might a)recognize the flaws and problems with their current game and stick with it anyway b/c of their sense of investment (friends and time), albeit having less fun, b)move to a new title to try an recapture the sense of fun once they get burnt out with their current game c)engage in message board advocacy to try and get things changed they dont like about their current title or in future ones d)give up on the mmorpgs and stick to other game genres with possible short returns to old games when expansions or nostaglia kick in e) or some combination of the above. (Hell, those new players may be joining us at sites like this in about 2 years too.  Places like the waterthread are like the end game to the meta-game of being involved in mmorpg gaming in general.)

I dont think anyone here is deluding themselves that a perfect game is going to be made for them, but that doesn't stop us from wanting more than we currently have.  Dissatisfaction is a great motivator for change, but the only real change we can make seems to be bitching and beta test reporting.  Personally, i think the sort of depth im looking for is a good 5-10 years off at a minimum, and then probably only from niche games b/c I also recognize that most typical mmorpg's of today dont want what I want.

Xilren

[Zaphkiel]

Open PvP in a MMOLG is a welcome step toward the MMOLG holy grail of reintroduing role-play as an activity. What better way is there to impact other players than to kill their characters? Emotions bubble over, words are exchanged before, during and after, and events unfold because of what players are doing.

  Open PvP in a MMOG is a step toward ganking, cheating assholes ruling the game.   I don't welcome that, and neither does the majority of paying customers.  

I personally believe that it all comes down to player accountability. I believe that players can be guided into role-play without the need for coded restrictions if the game can hold players accountable for their actions. Along with accountability, players also need the ability to punish other players. Real life punishment of permanent death and imprisonment doesn't exist in MMOLGs. You can't have a functional society without a means to enforce decency.

   The problem with players being able to punish other players, is that the ability to punish is directly related to how strong your character is.  In order to enforce your will against someone who's character is customized for PvP, you have to have a character just like theirs, and play exactly the way they do.  If you don't do that, then they will be punishing you.  And that is unacceptable for the majority of paying customers.  
   Without coded restrictions, all MMOGs will operate under the "might makes right" rule of social decency.  I do not accept that, when an alternative exists.

[Soukyan]

If the karate kid didn't have to paint fences and do the other crap that miagi (sp, whatever) had him do, if he just suddenly said, 'whoa, i know kung fu', what kind of story does that make?  Does anyone watch that story?  The part you aren't getting is that these games are built upon a genre where the lowly student strives and struggles to eventually become the master.

Or the wrong game world perhaps? Neo plugged in and "knew" kung fu in a matter of moments. How will skill gain and such be handled in The Matrix Online? Or was that canned already because without the treadmill, the developers had no idea what to offer for gameplay? What about City of Heroes where you start with super powers. You don't level to X level to gain levitate. You can fly if you so choose. What kind of gameplay can we expect from that game when players can choose their superpowers in advance? Cooperative action game against AI threats. Hmm... could be fun perhaps. Just some more thoughts on the matter.

[zubey]

(long time lurker, first time poster; pls be gentle)

Addressing the end of the article, I believe Planetside meets the criteria.   Although, it's interesting to note that even with "maxed-out" characters, many people play for the scoreboard; to be first in kills or for their outfit's glory.

I'm a veteran of UO, EQ, AO, and DAoC.  I enjoyed each for what they were, but have sworn off catassing.  (Although I admit, I feel the itch when I read about WoW. I'll resist, though.  I mean it.  Really, this time.)

I find plenty to do in Planetside.  Answering the questions: I have fun.  I know what to do.  I go out there and play to win, on many different levels.  Winning can be a small engagement, like me battling a single enemy for control of a tower.  Or larger, like control of a hard-fought base or continent.  I get some sense of accomplishment practically every night.

But I don't think I'm representative.  Many cannot see the forest for the trees.  I think it might have to do with being able to set your own goals and not have the game tell you "You win the round" or "Ding!".

The sad thing is that even if someone like me tries to set his own goals in a level-driven MMOG, it pretty much precludes playing with friends who want to catass to victory.  And if I'm not playing with friends (or making new ones), the MMOG will never get a hold on me.

[Alluvian]

What about City of Heroes where you start with super powers. You don't level to X level to gain levitate. You can fly if you so choose. What kind of gameplay can we expect from that game when players can choose their superpowers in advance?

Incorrect.  You DO level and gain skills in City of Heroes.  Superspeed, flight, superjumping, nighcrawler like teleportation, levitation are all gained as you level.  I am not in beta myself so I can't say if you can start with these or not.  At the beginning you pick what kinds of skills you will know.  What your specialties are.  Like maybe psychic ranged attacks and claw melee or fire melee and fire defense, or archery ranged and sword melee.  Then as you level up you gain more skills in these specialties or skills in the generic abilities like movement.  So maybe one level you can get a fireball attack, or a fire shield, or a fire imp creation ability or super jump or flight or whatever.

Kind of odd to have superheroes gaining powers but not exactly unheard of to have heroes who grow in ability as they learn more about their powers, or become stronger with them, or make more gadgets that give them.

Back to the topic at hand, is accomplishment important to me?  Not sure.  I think fun is more important than accomplishment.  I didn't like puzzle pirates and even though I could log on and gain some fame each time I played I felt like it was a waste of time at the end of the day.  In EQ I don't really accomplish much of anything playing 1 or 2 ldon dungeons a week (or less) but I do have fun hanging out with friends that don't play any other games I am in.  And I actually find LDON a good challenge if we have 4 man groups.  The challenge is in beating the clock by working together better and making sure mistakes don't get out of hand.

But EQ is at the very tail end of my interest.  I don't ever expect to get another level or to ever finish my epic quest (I don't know many in a decent guild anymore).

I am looking for a place to put my effort into, and then I will probably cancel EQ and SWG and go there.  I just can't find that place yet.

I think I will really like the new combat model in City of Heroes and the heroic transportation is enough fun for a month just there.  Moving around is a blast with some of these skills.  And the fastest modes of movement actually take some skill.  Teleportation can get you killed, superspeed is good, but best when combined with super jump and that takes some skill in choosing the best path.  The problem is that few will follow me to City of Heroes.  There are few interested in the comic book genre in my group of online friends.  My wife isn't even interested.

[kaid]

What I mean by a sense of accomplishment for myself tends revolve around the goals I make for myself. It can range from wanting to go to a new dungeon to beating something that has killed me before in the past or as simple as doing a quest for a new painting.

Levels can be a goal but in my case are usually an aside towards the things I want to do myself. I do not think games require levels to be fun but levels are a tested method to prolong the length of a game and the rate at which you can see and utilize content.


If you had eq where everybody started at level 65 with maxed aaxp and all the gear they could ever want most would get bored and leave after a month or two. If something is just given to you there is no sense of ownership or connection to a character. I like avatars I can empathise with due to the trials and ups and downs they have had.

If somebody finds a better way of doing this I will be the first one to try. I try just about every single mmrpg that comes to my attention to see what they do right and what they do wrong. EQ for all the grousing I and others do about it got alot of things right or it would not still be as popular as it is.

Uo another ancient game also did alot of things right many of which have yet to be repeated. Right now City of heros has been amusing me quite a bit I really can't go into it much due to NDA but I find it quite amusing.


Kaid

[Ballast]

Here's a "What If" for everyone to consider. Bear in mind, this is a half-formed idea that occured to me while reading this thread.

What if there was a degree of seperation or more between the "game" and the avatar?

Along the lines of The Matrix™, your avatar exists in one world, but plays in another. To translate to a fantasy setting, perhaps avatars are angels and demons that posses mortals to prosecute the eternal war between good and evil. In a game-mechanic sense, players would choose sets of skills before entering the "game world", with the number and types of skills able to be chosen balanced. An avatars performance in the game world would be tracked, but I have yet to think of what the rewards would be for such a system.

The point is to retain the sense of accomplishment, give new players and non-catasses the ability to be competitive, and most importantly get away from the treadmill grind.

Add, subtract or nuke as you see fit.

Oh, and before I forget... The degree of seperation comes from the avatar having access to two "planes" of existence, which are not necessarily connected. In other words, the avatar has an existence as an angel/demon, and an existence as a possessed mortal, and if you don't transfer or connect identities, the degree of seperation opens up a host of possibilites. Admittedly, some of them could be negative, but that's a question for another thread.

[Captain Poopypants]

The drive to level permeates almost all activities in MMOG’s. You don’t play the game, you “go hunting,” which usually involves a group trying to find the most efficient place to “pull” the minimum number of “mobs” to them, taking the minimum amount of risks needed to gain the maximum amount of experience to gain the next level. Never mind that gaining those levels doesn’t significantly change the gameplay. Or that the only justification for the need to level is to either take on bigger monsters, raid more efficiently, or to own the opposition players. Adventure and exploration take a back seat to tacking on numbers to the paper doll nightmare that MMOG characters really are.

Baby steps, Haemish, baby steps.



In vicious cycles that stretch all the way back to games like doom, myst, Civilization, Warcraft, etc  publishers have had the atomic-accurate power to cut the balls off of any given developer, as long as the employees of said developer value their ability to put food on the table. Seriously, someone should write a god damn book about this. The old sub-era of gaming where Studios and teams worked and became motivated by just a little more than publisher milestones has diffused into a contagious and terminally impulsive corporate interest in making the next 6 or 7-digit selling game. This results in many different self-destructive behaviors, and the foremost, besides spending 90% of one's resources on 'better' graphics, are low-risk cliche projects. Indeed, no one wants to back the next Masters of Magic or the next SSI; they don't care about lassoing in small successes and building on top of them.

Point?


Well for starts, there won't be more niches in the future, but there will be even more clones of what the last guy did (with extra mayo), so long as games like Vice City and ETM* keep sucking up what little marketshare there is. Maybe the operating margins will eventually drop so low, that the future developer will no longer be held by a short leash from their corporate marketing and production departments, who knows... we still have a fucking long way to go before creativity>production.

Case; Leveling is exactly why most studios are paralyzed to do something different than what has come before them. They absolutely can't, in a profitable time frame. They'll have panic attacks and seizures while sweating cats and dogs before doing so. And simply because most Pc gamers have grown accustomed to playing a scripted, missions-based environment that most devs have become SO good at squeezing out, does not mean that most multiplayers and even non-mmog'ers are not secretly waiting, hoping for a game that does more than put them in a maze with a small pebble of cheese or grain at the end.  Almost everyone I have met that enjoys maxxing their character out and becoming 'godly' eventually gets tired of what the end game does; some of them will even bitch like crazy about it; and will move on to a game that gives them completely refreshing experiences and opportunities to learn something new.

Your friend, however, has simply gotten tired of waiting for a even field where he has every opportunity to play against an opponent, on HIS terms. He simply indulges in a guilty pleasure that gives him cheap entertainment. I think if you asked him, he would admit to wanting something else than killing the next sparkly and acquiring something equally sparkly.

I'll take a small gamble here in saying that despite her Mt. Everest of flaws, and her bottomless chasm of lacking interpesonal skills,  the old Myschyfosaur was nails-on-heads accurate when she wrote ( I think it was more of a dev chat) about giving players more to do in a given PSW than simply destroying things.

The problem is ECONOMY, not endgame. You can't have any true resources as long as the game is scripted and the gameplay is strictly on-rails only. You can only attempt to bust the stats while it is still meaningful   and fashionalbe to do so. A few years down the road... oh lookie, no one really plays the game anymore, they just laze around, chatting with friends, talking about the next big thing.

The horadric cube in Diablo 2 is a perfect example. Before the set-in-stone recipes were largely explored by players, everyone toyed with the cube. It was trading device without the silly skills; you could do all kinds of wonderful, creative things with it. People would go so far as to  spew complete horse manure about secret recipes! Naturally, as the unevolving purposes of this static gameplay mechanism dragged on, it would later become more of a tool to inflate a player's position of wealth rather than a fun, non-hunting distraction.

I would go on about the first step towards dynamic content resembling an environment a lot like a stock exchange, on paper anyways, where 'investing' time into certain aspects of the game causes them to drop or rise in effectiveness via arrays and other sorts of complex automation/mathematical devices, and the trends of the gaming populace come and go unperdictably, such that the experience constantly evolves from alpha to omega. To say anything about fucking neural nets.  It's really a matter of playing the next rathunter, repeatedly. until such things are possible. You can try all sorts of things to make the best of it,  but I ask you, what's that gonna achieve?

HOWEVER, my attention span is starting to wane and my wrists are getting limp. And such an evolved experience is at least a decade away, if not more. But then, these discussions have never really been about the short term anyways. I just wanted to add that last bit if ever an "i tolja so" situation arised.
Doubt this was the conclusion you were talking about.



* Matrix because I can't think of any better example

[ajax34i]

What if there was a degree of seperation or more between the "game" and the avatar?

Along the lines of The Matrix™, your avatar exists in one world, but plays in another. To translate to a fantasy setting, perhaps avatars are angels and demons that posses mortals to prosecute the eternal war between good and evil. In a game-mechanic sense, players would choose sets of skills before entering the "game world", with the number and types of skills able to be chosen balanced.

I'd do (if I could code, heh) a permadeath game with that.  Your avatar is your account, and you can possess a random NPC (random stats, the choice to let you in is the NPC's).  The NPC provides the stats and the body, weath if any from parents, starting gear, etc.  You provide the skills, ability to cast spells, alignment, and your fame.  

Once you take over, you go do whatever (hopefully there's a large body of lore, factions, and a major epic quest going on that needs your and every other player's particular skills) till you die, at which point the NPC is dead and you can try to take over someone else.

As an extra "degree of separation", instead of taking over, you try to "persuade" the NPC to do your bidding, by typing /commands, and hoping that the NPC will obey you.  Obviously, lots of AI is needed for that to work.

Fame, or possibly flags, could grant access to more advanced NPC's to be taken over.  Your avatar has access to all the skills and all the spells but the NPC, based on its level, will only understand/be able to use a limited set.  Because the choosing is random, sometimes you get a fighter, sometimes a mage, etc., throughout the game's life span.

[HaemishM]

Your friend, however, has simply gotten tired of waiting for a even field where he has every opportunity to play against an opponent, on HIS terms. He simply indulges in a guilty pleasure that gives him cheap entertainment. I think if you asked him, he would admit to wanting something else than killing the next sparkly and acquiring something equally sparkly.

Actually, he just quit EQ. Again. For the 6th time. He is banking on CoH this time. Last time I think it was Planetside, before that SWG, before that I think he quit to go to AC2, and DAoC on their releases. And yet he keeps going back to EQ. I think it's mostly got to do with the familiarity, but also the fact that he maintains contact with old RL friends in distant towns through EQ and the "clan/group/guild" that formed in EQ.

He wants opponents on his terms, and they are VERY strict terms. If an FPS doesn't allow LAN play with good bots so 3-4 people can play in a room with 16 or so bots, he won't play it. He wants no PVP with people he doesn't know, and prefers even in FPS for co-op play as opposed to deathmatch style. He refuses to play PVP or FPS games online, with the collection of idiots the Net offers.

[Pug]

Open PvP in a MMOG is a step toward ganking, cheating assholes ruling the game.   I don't welcome that, and neither does the majority of paying customers.

Cheating? Assholes? What does cheating or antisocial behavior have to do with PvP? Are PvE players all pleasant people who don't cheat?

You know, I use to swear that sushi was nasty stuff before I had ever tried it. I couldn't tell you why I didn't like sushi because I didn't actually know. All I could tell you is that eating "raw fish" was nasty and that nobody should do it. Fortunately a good friend educated me to the fact that sushi isn't just "raw fish" and I found out after I actually tried sushi that sushi is pretty good stuff. I'm sure that if I had been given slimy raw fish that I would still have a bad opinion of sushi. I guess I got lucky. It's weird to me how people (including myself) will vehemontly defend preconceived notions.

Given that there's not many MMOLGs out there that don't offer anything other than slimy fish I'll have to forgive your prejudice. As a FPS player I understand the value of conflict in the form of PvP and have seen several excellent implementations that would seem to work in a MMOLG setting. PlanetSide's PvP system really is pretty amazing if you only give it a try. It's just too bad that PlanetSide doesn't have anything more to offer.

It's just not possible for a group of GM's to create enough dynamic and unique content to satisfy thousands of players. The future of MMOLGs is in creating a system that allows the players to generate their own content... to actually interact in a massive way. The content that players will eventually generate would be pretty bland without conflict. Note how few coop first person shooters exist in comparison to conflict mods.

BTW... the baby jesus is crying

[Anonymous]

People equate PvP with UO, UT, Quake, DOOM, EQ, gosh, a LOT of games.  And everyone who has tried pvp in these games has encountered anti-social assholes while pvping in all of these games.  I've encountered cheaters in FPS games, UO, and DAoC.  They make PvP a helluva lot less fun.  Although I did take great satisfaction this one time in slaughtering a cheater in DAoC.  Radar does not make you an automatic winner, kids!  People will do ANYTHING to win, which means squeezing more performance out of templates, jumping classes or servers, racing through the latest content if it gives an edge, etc.  Or abusing skill and stat bugs to give you an even more insurmountable edge.  Or radar.  Or aimbots.  Hell, there's people who stop playing a WC3 battle.net ID if their ranking gets too high, and create a new ID, just so they can sucker people into playing them.  Not to mention maphack.  And you wonder why PvP is equated with anti-social cheating assholes?  There are plenty of reasons.

MMOGs are a terrible vehicle for PvP.  Imagine trying to play Quake against Thresh and his clan.  You are going to lose, every time.  He and his clan are that good, you aren't.  No problem, really.  You just jump servers until you find one closer to your skill level.  In an MMOG, you PvP against Thresh every single night.  This quickly becomes less than fun.  Really simple when you think about it.  Forcing everyone to PvP against the varsity is fun, in the short term, for the varsity.  Everyone else wonders why the fuck they are bothering.

PvP might be the future when real consequences are in place.  The other problems, PvP mostly being about time invested in avatars, as opposed to actual personal skill, will no doubt continue to be an insurmountable issue for a lot of players who lack the time for catass just to PvP.  Lineage 2 sounds like they are getting close, which is about as good as PvPers should expect to see in the near future.  Mostly due to the way PvP was abused in the past.  Don't like the number of PvE MMOGs coming out now?  The pvpers have no one to blame but themselves.

[ajax34i]

What does cheating or antisocial behavior have to do with PvP?

PvP is like Communism:  sounds great on paper, but when actually implemented it sucks.

[grebo]

About the whole levels vs no levels thing:

What about items?  Aren't they just a different sort of level?  better items for folks that have played the game longer, so should they go too?

And if levels and items are done away with, what incentive remains for revisiting content areas that you have already explored?  With levels/items you can gain some xp or a super shiny for a friend....  Without anything but the content to attract you, I think it would be a bit like heading back into Kefka's tower after the big psycho was already dead.

[Zaphkiel]

Cheating? Assholes? What does cheating or antisocial behavior have to do with PvP? Are PvE players all pleasant people who don't cheat?

    Apparently, PvP causes otherwise normal, well adjusted people who get laid quite often to turn into raging dick waving fuckwads.  I don't know the exact relationship, but I've seen it happen.  It's not pretty.  I suspect it has something to do with latent sado-masochistic tendencies, but I can't prove anything.  
     Also, please note that I said cheating assholes would RULE.  I didn't say all PvPers are that way.  In open PvP, amoral, win at any cost, take any advantage types will win.  That means they will be the ones setting the acceptable moral code.  They will be the "might" in might makes right.  They will be the Lords, in Lord of the Flies.  You will be one of them, bow down to them, or quit.  And while I have no doubt there are many sadistic fuckwads drooling over the concept, it's just not a good business model.  Take your delusions elsewhere.

[Captain Poopypants]

It's just not possible for a group of GM's to create enough dynamic and unique content to satisfy thousands of players. The future of MMOLGs is in creating a system that allows the players to generate their own content... to actually interact in a massive way. The content that players will eventually generate would be pretty bland without conflict. Note how few coop first person shooters exist in comparison to conflict mods.

Pure horseshit, but I'm glad we agree vaguely on heavily player-influenced content.

In no way what so ever, is a struggle between this guy and another guy inherently necessary to keep the world dynamic. Works on Darktide? UO? Who gives a fuck... those games/servers were such mishappen accidents by design that they BECAME effective ways to have conflict with another player. In a given PSW, the player may just want to indulge in what may seem like an endless learning or discovery process, and absorb the apparently bottomless depth a game looks to have those first 12 hours of playing. They might want to join some kind of community, to find a place that isn't empty and has some form of meaningful interaction going on. There are INFINITE ways to expand on this sort of playstyle, with a truly ever-changing world allowing a mix of both communal play and discovery at every turn of the 'little hand', and never once does p2p conflict ever enter the picture; the players are kept plenty entertained with the environment. Reason for more conflict than co-op behavior? The players who enjoy destroying someone else tend to override the aphony mass that has no interest in such things, and once again, it's what devs are best at currently.

The biggest barrier to any sort of innovation right now appears to be servers that can cost more than certain Infiniti cars; once the micron processes are developed that can overcome the critical workload that the webbernet seems to provide, the market will glut itself, and the costs of running a game like EQ will drop significantly that it would become effecient and taskworthy to actually innovate once again.

[Pug]

Obtaining items is not the same as grinding for levels.

First, of all the items can be made so that they drop on death. Try doing that with levels and you get perma-death or total skill loss. Unlike perma-death and total skill loss, a player can prepare for item loss by banking items.

Second, unlike skills, items can be transferred. Joining a guild that provides equipment can mean instantly becoming useful and able to participate in the game (player skill aside). Since the focus of an item based game would not be grinding to uberness you don't lose anything by allowing players to skip the grind.

Third, obtaining items allows players more freedom in advancement and variety of goals where grinding for levels forces players into repetitive behavior for a single goal. Hunting for resources to craft items or for item drops allows players a great deal of freedom and variety in what they do. Hunting for exp to ding allows players one goal which is always finding the most efficient way to grind. Doing anything other than efficiently grinding is a waste of time in level based games.

Finally, items retain value so long as items are useful, their possession is temporary and they require time to obtain. Unlike level based games, a +1 sword takes a new character just as long as an established character to obtain. A new player can be just as useful as an established player when it comes collecting needed resources.

I'm sure I missed some of the better item vs. level arguments, but I'm sure that you get the idea. Item based games are far superior to level based games.

For the anti-PvP crowd who cling to PvE like G.W. clings to his search for WMDs; write a list of games where there is direct conflict between players and a list of games where there is no direct conflict. Here's my short list:

Direct conflict: Baseball, Basketball, Football, Soccer, Tennis, Chess, Checkers, Counter-Strike, Quake, Unreal,  PvP MMOLGs.

Indirect conflict: Golf, Racing, Slot Machines, PvE MMOLGs.

Which is more successful? Direct conflict is by far the most successful type of game both in number of games and in number of players that participate. Just look at how many people play first person shooters, any given sport or even PvP MMOLGs in comparison to PvE MMOLGs. Hell, professional sports players get payed millions of dollars so that we can watch them play. There's no argument here. PvP is what the majority of players want and is also the way to go if you want to be successful.

No amount of processing power or well designed AI can replace human interaction, especially meaningful conflict. You hate being trash talked because it's another person talking trash, not because of what's being said.

Bad game design and lack of accountability is responsible for disruptive anti-social behavior, not PvP. Anyone who has played a PvE MMOLG can attest to the fact that anti-social behavior and cheating does exist in PvE MMOLGs and that anti-social behavior is not unique to PvP games. Ever hear of EQ radar? Ever hear of people scamming, training or trash talking other people in EQ? I have.

Speaking of pure bullshit, maybe some of you PvE guys could do something more productive like help G.W. find those missing WMDs instead of preach about how player conflict is bad for multi-player games. ;)

[Dark_MadMax]

Thing is that many ppl dont play the game. they play "to achieve" to have this nn level ,this leet item ,this number in ladder.

 There is a category in PnP and CRPg called "munchkins" -   players whose main goal is to attain highest level possible and best items in game.Everything else is secondary. -Have you ever heard bragging in
-such and such game- I got lvl XX char! I did 100% of quests! I got all items -those players are not new  ,they always existed -in pnp games first (but there was GM  who could do anything about em ) , and then in CRPGs.

 Those are main subscribers base of EQ/DaOC/Lineage - insert any other treadmill in.

 Though what they are often missing in CRPG is roleplay and story . One of the best CRPGs of all time was Planescape : Torment  - driven mainly by story ,dialogues and players own roleplay and emotions.Ironically the game was  not very successfull from the financial point of view.

 But scripted  story and roleplay dont fit too well in MMORPG world by definition . Though level grind and item hunting is . Coupled with graphical chat and abilty to show your achievemnt no wonder EQ/DAoC  is so succeffull

 Another alternative ( untried so far) would be allow players to shape the world and drive the story around them.-  the of persistent massive  multiplayer world is  the ideal background for that.

 Some skeptics woould say it was already tried in early UO and SB : -

 I would say throwing players in some kind of PW without thought out player run systems is not it : If game doesnt provide easy convenient methods  and interface for player run systems such sytems simply wouldnt exist - it would be anarchy.

-Is it players fault that IN UO/SB there is practically zero accountabilty for pkers -as there is no real possibility to track down criminals and penalize them in any way ?

-Is it players fault that  "random pking " is actually promoted by game itself as most fun in game activity? -while its so fun to be ranodm pker hoping from tree to tree ,killing farmers and shoppers ,while regular citizen only have boring farming, "raids"( consisting 1 hours wit ,1 hour run ,2 minute pvp) and "sieges" ( e.g. 2 hour wait ,1 hour preparation , 10 minute pvp. - There is no fun alternative for "good citizens " excpet lvling another alt /farming.

-Is it players fault that running city in SB was full time job? That there was no in-game controls for proper shop managment /friending ppl to  structures?

-Is it players fault that there is no game mechanics whatsoever to make player driven content - no in-game message boards, no in-game player made quests  -no nothing .

 -take DaOC /SB "zergs" problem. Is it players fault that there is no tactical combat interface ( a-la savage)  which will allow commanders to organize ppl into well controlled armies?

-Is it players fault that there is no good in inter group controls allowing to designate targets/control group  and  only hardcore guild with TS would have this advantage?


 If there is no IN GAME mechanics and systems no amount of out of game player organization will  help .-As most casuals ,heck even most hardcore ppl wont bother with it .

enchancing MMORPG gameplay by player driven events and content is what made UO stand out .  SB was attempt at this - but failed to provide any in game mechanics to support this idea (and of course bugs)

[Romp]

Cheating? Assholes? What does cheating or antisocial behavior have to do with PvP? Are PvE players all pleasant people who don't cheat?

    Apparently, PvP causes otherwise normal, well adjusted people who get laid quite often to turn into raging dick waving fuckwads.  I don't know the exact relationship, but I've seen it happen.  It's not pretty.  I suspect it has something to do with latent sado-masochistic tendencies, but I can't prove anything.  
     Also, please note that I said cheating assholes would RULE.  I didn't say all PvPers are that way.  In open PvP, amoral, win at any cost, take any advantage types will win.  That means they will be the ones setting the acceptable moral code.  They will be the "might" in might makes right.  They will be the Lords, in Lord of the Flies.  You will be one of them, bow down to them, or quit.  And while I have no doubt there are many sadistic fuckwads drooling over the concept, it's just not a good business model.  Take your delusions elsewhere.

not if the game allows for tools to punish assholes.  Anyway the reason pvp breeds this kind of behaviour is because its competitive.  Its about beating the other guy, being the best and achieving something against other players not against mob AI.

Whereas a lot of people hate this kind of thing, they dont want something which is going to challenge them or see someone talking trash at them when they lose, a lot of people actually enjoy it.  PvP is more like playing a sport more than anything else.  It takes skill, you need to practice and learn and then you compete against others and try and beat them.  And you see the same competitiveness you see on a sporting field.  

A lot of people like to compete against other people whether its on sporting field or online.  Particularly young males which make up the majority of gamers.  Look at the success in pvp in RTS and FPS games.  

MMORPGs could be just as successful at pvp but no dev companies are putting significant amounts of money into making a pvp game which is actually enjoyable because they think its a lost cause.

[daveNYC]

And because developing a successful PvP game is harder because it requires a certain type of player activity in order to work.  

SB ran into problems, not just from the bugs, but because of guilds owning entire servers.  WP had built their game design thinking that the game would revolve around two, three, or four mid-sized guild alliances fighting over the server, and that any uber-guild would quickly fracture into smaller guilds.

Whoops.

[Zaphkiel]

not if the game allows for tools to punish assholes.  Anyway the reason pvp breeds this kind of behaviour is because its competitive.  Its about beating the other guy, being the best and achieving something against other players not against mob AI.

    Almost any tool that can be used to punish assholes, can be used BY assholes.   There's only one way to get around that, and that is a human umpire.  That's what they do in professional sports to keep things competetive, and not cross the line.  Except for hockey.  Unsportsmanlike activities are subjective, and computers can only handle literal.   Until MMOGs can afford to hire full time umpires, they are never going to get past the Lord of the Flies stage.

[Romp]

You dont need a human umpire, that is most definitely not the way to go to try and limit asshole behaviour.

You need to give players the tools to mete out justice.  Simplest way to do this is for example to have a system where you need to have access to a player run city to bank.  If you go around being an asshole and killing everyone then you arent going to have anywhere to bank or buy and sell stuff.  If any cities do allow you to bank then your victims can have the ability to siege that city and knock it down.  So then pks would have to band together to build cities and protect them.  

Anyone who has played a pvp game before will know that the vast majority of players are not assholes and do not random pk and thus if the majority band together they can defeat smaller pk guilds if they have the ability to do so.  They do, however, have to have the ability to do more than just kill pks, they need to be able to do some sort of lasting damage, like knocking down their city.

Its not a perfect system but its one example of a system which gives players the ability to get back at their enemies.

I can think of many others too.  Any systems which have been tried such as in SB and UO were pretty half assed and didnt really work.  Although I did play on an SB server in which the majority of the server allied up and knocked down all the cities of a pk alliance which spent its time pking and griefing newbies 24/7.

But even if we say that it is impossible to have some kind of system which allows people to punish griefers and assholes and random pks then that still doesnt mean a pvp game cant be a good and successful game.  There are many people who like I said, enjoy fighting, regardless of any asshole behaviour.  There are people who enjoy the competitive challenge and who enjoy fighting against shit talking 16 year olds.  There is no player justice in FPS and I would say there is a far greater asshole element in FPS games.  Granted the grief element can be far greater in a MMORPG but likewise revenge is that much more satisfying.

There are many people who just cant stand being killed or griefed in a MMORPG.  PvP games arent goign to be for them but there are many other people who are a bit more thick skinned and enjoy pvp.  There is definitely a market out there, the reason pvp games havent worked isnt because they cant work its just that all the ones that have been made so far have been pretty crap.

[Scorus]

I agree generally with Mr. Average's response.

A short word about my non-traditional MMO experience: I have never played EQ or UO (pause for catcalls and general harrassment). My gaming group from college was looking for a vehicle to play games together after being scattered to the four winds and found an ad for AO, which we joined at launch. Since then we have played AO, EnB, Eve, SB, SWG, DAOC and probably one or two that I'm forgetting. Plus the betas for several of those.

The two most important things for me in an MMO's mechanics are character development and a good, hard challenge (and, on a non-mechanics sidenote, good customer service). I like a game where I can set a hard goal for myself and then work toward that goal. Of the games I have played, AO best suited this because there were vehicles which would allow me to turn up the difficulty on challenges and there was a flexibility in character development strategies.

PvP rarely has any place in that because I have yet to find a game where whether you are good at PvP wasn't based primarily on whether you picked character template A or B.  You either pick the right one or two combinations of skills and equipment or you don't. Yes, once everyone has picked the right combination then it comes down to player ability, but by that time I was way outside the character development aspect that is so important to me. In other words, I could either choose my character development options and suck at PvP or use a template and be able to compete and character development is more important to me.

Character development does not necessarily mean the level treadmill. Or, rather, it shouldn't necessarily mean the level treadmill though in some games it most definitely does. It can mean getting a piece of equipment that I want (as long as that DOESN'T mean camping, where I have to sit and watch helplessly while some group of uber players kills the guy I needed to kill because one of their guildmates' alts might want the object sometime later). It can mean making money. It can mean making people laugh. It can mean a whole lot of things. But it can also mean levelling. Levelling efficiently can be a challenge in a lot of games, even if that is 'Yes, I can easily kill those 2000 xp monsters, but I want to see if I can get good enough to kill those 4000 xp monsters just as fast.'

While I know I'm almost alone in this, the best MMO experiences I have had were AO missions. I could turn them up in difficulty and constantly challenge myself, they were discrete areas that only I or my group could play in so I didn't have to put up with all the juvenile griefing and name calling that is so rampant in MMOs, and playing a crat (pet/crowd control class) I had to constantly be on alert or I would quickly be very dead. I'm hoping that CoH missions turn out to be in some way similar.

[Xilren's Twin]

You dont need a human umpire, that is most definitely not the way to go to try and limit asshole behaviour.

You need to give players the tools to mete out justice.  

This is pretty offtopic to the centrail thread, but I thought it was generally accepted as axiomatic around here that any such tools used to "mete our justice" were always able to be utlitized or avoided by "griefers" to escape said justice more easily than it is to enforce said justice.  In your simple example, an equally simple response to get around the restriction is use mule/friend to buy and sell through...

The problem with pvp in most mmorpgs is this part..."competitive challenge".  In FPS games, barring exploits and outright cheating, the playing field is level so you can kill asshole#984 just as easily as he can kill you.  In mmorpg's with their typical large differntial power curve, this is usually not the case; you might be a better player than the griefer, but if he is level 50 and your level 20, the conclusion is foregone who will win (especially if they wait to gank you while you're hurt from fighting mongbats...). Which is why non-optional pvp turns so many people off.  I dont think most people mind dying so long as they feel they had a fighting chance.

Xilren

[Anonymous]

Romp, you were told once, you need to be told AGAIN?

Any tool put into a game to combat griefers will be used by the griefers.

It should be a fucking rule of online gaming.  Go ahead.  Think of a tool.  Now turn it around.  How can it be used to hurt other players?  The best example I can think of offhand is the five minute logging feature added to UO.  Put in to combat trash talking griefers, it took about a week (probably much less) for griefers to start pushing buttons, waiting for what they said to drop off of the chat log, and then BAM page a GM.  Using a tool that was aimed at them to get other people banned.

And every MMOG has human umpires.  They are called GMs, and there are never enough of them to do the job sufficiently well.  And in fact, they can be one of the biggest causes of problems you have on your hands.  GM Ironwill anyone?

PvP is not the answer.  I know it's the answer some of you want, that's too bad.  Manage your expectations.  UO will never come again, the victims have choice now, the best you can hope for is Shadowbane.  Or Lineage 2.  Or M59.  Of course, these games are filled with people who want to kick your ass, instead of sheeple waiting to get their asses kicked.  That's not quite as much fun!

[Arnold]

Even if all players are equal,  zerg guilds will form where they put it to everyone else.  It's not fun for members of the zerg guild, because there's no challenge and it's certainly not fun for people not in the zerg guilds.  

PvP can really only serve as a mini-game of a MMOG in which you have to artificially limit the number of players per team and you have to auto-balance the teams based on player skill.  Players have absolutely no sense of fair play, so developers have to force them to play nice.

That's not always true.  In UO, it was common for the more skilled players from a zerg to break off and form a new, smaller guild.

And AC Darktide had an artifical reason for the zerg phenomenon there because of the XP system.  The guilds on that server weren't very large until people really figured out how to take the most advantage of the XP pyramid.  After that, you saw close knit guilds accepting more and more members and diluting their former identity.