Are Dev's Bad, or do MMO PVP Games Not Work?

[Ingmar]

Perhaps most of all, previous games have almost mutated into something new, where the original tenets of strategy and skill have been tossed out for a new way of playing, and that is something that doesn't wash well with the majority of modern MMO developers. If you "exploit" the game (that is, play it -too- well), you get nerfed. A sport-like game can't suffer that for long - compare to how fractions of larger gaming communities stop in time, keeping to one version of a game that they liked best (before change X, Y, Z).

I don't think this sort of environmental change necessarily destroys competitiveness. CCGs basically work exactly like this, after all, and they see plenty of competitive play.

[WindupAtheist]

I think some of the success of the arena model is a bit false because there is a large segment of people who only do it to pick up gear to PVE with (like me for example.) We will see how popular it remains after the expansion releases and almost every bit of gear has a rating requirement. I'm guessing arena participation will be way down without those S1/S2 type items that anyone can use.

I'll probably rack up enough arena points to get that blue PVP set with no rating requirement and then never go back. Not interested in grinding just to keep my armor from falling off.

[tmp]

As an addition, I think any MMO that relies heavily on gear (especially gear on rare drops) is also not going to gain traction just as a competitive game because too much of getting to the competitive bit relies on getting the gear, and those without the gear are sorely disadvantaged.

Taking CounterStrike as the comparable experience, as a character I'm still dangerous with the basic pistol and knife. Compare that to any MMO (even those with sports features) where I'd just be meat if I never upgraded to the top level gear.

On the other hand, this extra advantage provided by gear does have appeal for certain subset of players. If "pwning nubs" wasn't as entertaining, there would be no real need for developers to try and protect the newcomers from getting chain-ganked into oblivion by the 'higher levels' as the issue itself wouldn't exist.

[UnSub]

As an addition, I think any MMO that relies heavily on gear (especially gear on rare drops) is also not going to gain traction just as a competitive game because too much of getting to the competitive bit relies on getting the gear, and those without the gear are sorely disadvantaged.

Taking CounterStrike as the comparable experience, as a character I'm still dangerous with the basic pistol and knife. Compare that to any MMO (even those with sports features) where I'd just be meat if I never upgraded to the top level gear.

On the other hand, this extra advantage provided by gear does have appeal for certain subset of players. If "pwning nubs" wasn't as entertaining, there would be no real need for developers to try and protect the newcomers from getting chain-ganked into oblivion by the 'higher levels' as the issue itself wouldn't exist.

The n00bs will be pwnd because they were always meant to be pwnd.

In CS, the n00bs get pwnd just the same since they don't have the skills of how to play. The guy who takes them out with the DE is just better than them even if they themselves have an SMG or something.

[Phred]

I think the sheep would venture into the forest much more often if there weren't so many wolves.

Fixed.

Incidentally, the sheep are just a crutch for these wolves that can't quite cut it in wolf-only environment. Asking to have some easy prey to feed on delivered right under one's nose is about as carebear as it can get.

Plus Eve is like the UO of space mmorpg's. If you want to play a scifi/space mmog you don't have much choice, same as fantasy players didn't have any choice but to play UO.

Get a little competition in the genre and watch those sheep fly away.

[Venkman]

I find it very hard to believe that MMOs as we know them today will ever flower as true competitive games, mostly because they change/evolve too fast and not necessarily in the direction the community is pushing. Games that have been popular competitive games this far have had very strong, player-run communities, that have organized and created the sport aspect themselves, not had it created for them. I don't think any developer can aspire to running the competition for the players, because it'll be too monolithic and slow for players to feel engaged. Competition for the sake of competition (ergo, for fun) always works best.

But they do already. WoW BGs and Arenas. WAR Scenarios. The only type of competition that hasn't really "flowered" outside of Eve, at least in the West, is the server-wide world-changing type. SB was and would always have been niche no matter how stable the game was. DAoC RvR at its peak was after the subscriptions started to decline. People might like to think of pre-Trammel UO as a high water mark, but the game didn't suffer a mass hemorrage of subscriptions when Renaissance launched either.

Competition is here already and seems to be hitting its stride. The part that isn't making it is the big huge epic monsterous world changing you're-society-is-screwed-if-you-lose type games. But then, that makes a lot of sense when you look at the other genres of competitive video games out there too.

Maybe it's just a bad idea after all.

[Tarami]

But they do already. WoW BGs and Arenas. WAR Scenarios. The only type of competition that hasn't really "flowered" outside of Eve, at least in the West, is the server-wide world-changing type. SB was and would always have been niche no matter how stable the game was. DAoC RvR at its peak was after the subscriptions started to decline. People might like to think of pre-Trammel UO as a high water mark, but the game didn't suffer a mass hemorrage of subscriptions when Renaissance launched either.

Competition is here already and seems to be hitting its stride. The part that isn't making it is the big huge epic monsterous world changing you're-society-is-screwed-if-you-lose type games. But then, that makes a lot of sense when you look at the other genres of competitive video games out there too.

Maybe it's just a bad idea after all.

Most people in BGs/Scenarios and Arenas don't participate for the sake of competition, is my point. These things are very heavily incentivized, especially in WoW's case. In WAR's case, have a look around these forums. Most don't want to play scenarios that much, but feel forced to due to side-line rewards. You may call it competition, but I think it misses the point of what competition is. To me, it's just PvE grind against human-controlled mobs.

Here's how I see it: People like competition. No, in fact, they love it. Practically everyone enjoys partaking in competitions that are on their terms, that is, considered fair to them. If given the correct tools and great fundamental gameplay, people will organize and compete without any magic incentive strings having to be pulled.

Competition is fun, it's up to the MMO developers to build a game that enables competition, not maximizing your rewards.

[Slayerik]

I think the sheep would venture into the forest much more often if there weren't so many wolves.

Fixed.

Incidentally, the sheep are just a crutch for these wolves that can't quite cut it in wolf-only environment. Asking to have some easy prey to feed on delivered right under one's nose is about as carebear as it can get.

Plus Eve is like the UO of space mmorpg's. If you want to play a scifi/space mmog you don't have much choice, same as fantasy players didn't have any choice but to play UO.

Get a little competition in the genre and watch those sheep fly away.

IIRC those haven't done so well.

Fantasy players didn't have any choice but to play UO? WTF are you rambling about? People didn't even know WTF MMOs were at the time. Me and a few friends basically saw our dream realized with UO, being able to actually play Ultima....with hundreds of other people!!! I'm guessing half of the initial players of UO had played Ultimas previously. Then the choice of EQ came as well.

So far how many other space/scifi MMO's have died? Earth and Beyond, TR, and many others that didn't even make it into production.

Say what you will about Eve, but it has weathered a lot of storms the last five years and is the only game that remains out of the Graveyard around here (besides WoW of course). Give it a little fuckin' credit, if not for innovation then for longevity.

For the record, in Eve packs of wolves are constantly fighting each other.

[Venkman]

Competition is fun, it's up to the MMO developers to build a game that enables competition, not maximizing your rewards.

I don't equate video game competition to getting a bunch of family together to play Flag Football at the annual picnic

Without rewards players will go to games with rewards. Or they'll organize around rewards/systems they create themselves. Competition is a social catalyst, but it's not the framework by which people operate day-to-day. We don't compete to compete. We compete to improve.

This is seen in just about every competitive game there is. The big differences are the type of competition and the type of reward.

Then overlay all of that with the MMO gamer mindset/conditioning of acquisition.

[Slayerik]

Competition is fun, it's up to the MMO developers to build a game that enables competition, not maximizing your rewards.

I don't equate video game competition to getting a bunch of family together to play Flag Football at the annual picnic

Without rewards players will go to games with rewards. Or they'll organize around rewards/systems they create themselves. Competition is a social catalyst, but it's not the framework by which people operate day-to-day. We don't compete to compete. We compete to improve.

This is seen in just about every competitive game there is. The big differences are the type of competition and the type of reward.

Then overlay all of that with the MMO gamer mindset/conditioning of acquisition.

In the start of Subspace Chaos Zone, you were basically just playing for stats that reset Bi-Weekly. You compete against the other players in a sort of passive way. They are involved in your final record and points, since you are fighting them daily, but its not mano y mano statswise.

A dueling Zone was created from this, and eventually Pro leagues were formed by the players for 4 on 4 competetions and what not. Other competitive zones, like Powerball, we're formed and have had leagues the last 8+ years (highly competitive).

Make the base PVP fun. Allow the keeping of scores/records. Give your players the ability to run leagues.

[trias_e]

We compete to improve.

This is seen in just about every competitive game there is. The big differences are the type of competition and the type of reward.

I don't equate video game competition to getting a bunch of family together to play Flag Football at the annual picnic smiley

This is totally dependent on knowledge of your opponents/social context and how fun the game is.  I disagree with you almost entirely.  Most players never get better at a FPS after playing it for a few weeks, yet they can play for months and months.  Competition because competition is fun is much more highly seen at every level except for the MMORPG grind-a-thon.  From a scale of 1 being picnic and 5 being anti-picnic

1:  Playing super smash bros with some friends is pretty much just like playing flag football.

2:  Playing TF2 on your designated server where you know everyone is a little less like playing flag football, but still quite similar. 

3:  Playing TF2 on a random server isn't much like flag football.  It is still fun though, which makes it like flag football in that way.  You don't have to be getting better to have fun.  I sure as hell haven't gotten better at TF2 in a long time, and I've been playing it since it came out.

4:  Leveling in WAR scenarios with a well known guild group is still a little like flag football.  You don't care about your opponents, but at least you know your group well enough to get some sort of social fun out of it.  The game isn't fun enough to justify playing the same scenario over and over again, so grind is apparent.  Still, the social context mitigates this a bit.

5:  Leveling in WAR scenarios by yourself isn't anything like flag football.  You don't know anything about your opponents, and it isn't fun enough to warrant doing over and over for ages.  This is the first case where you are undoubtedly right Darniaq.  This is a pure grind for power equation.

Certainly you can survive in the 5 level in MMO PvP design:  WoW is arguably there right now.  Of course, WoW is only slightly dependent on PvP for it's success.

Question is, do you really want to compete with WoW in the skinner box department?  I don't.  2nd question is, can a PvP based game really survive if it's core gameplay isn't that fun, and the players you are playing against are meaningless?  It works for WoW perhaps because PvP is a side-show.  Or perhaps because they are just that good at behavioral science.

[Triforcer]

Yes.

[Tarami]

I don't equate video game competition to getting a bunch of family together to play Flag Football at the annual picnic

Without rewards players will go to games with rewards. Or they'll organize around rewards/systems they create themselves. Competition is a social catalyst, but it's not the framework by which people operate day-to-day. We don't compete to compete. We compete to improve.

This is seen in just about every competitive game there is. The big differences are the type of competition and the type of reward.

Then overlay all of that with the MMO gamer mindset/conditioning of acquisition.

I think you're a little off when you're saying online gaming isn't anything like football at a picnic, because, really, that's where it starts. That's not competition as it's more formally known, but that's still how most people learn to play the game.

I don't see why man-becomes-wolf is the assumption upon which MMO PvP competition builds. It's not the natural way for most people to start competing, they do that by challenging friends and acquiantances in light-hearted ways.

If I'm to boil it down to two points, I believe those would be:

1) Competition must be player-led. Only the players have the insight to create the hierarchies needed to support all "weights" of PvPers, from casual to poopsockers. As I just now noticed Slayerik mentioned, player-run leagues.
2) Every aspect of the PvP should have a "spar mode" where nothing counts for anything. Compare it to the 4.30 AM game of WC3 or what have you, but I believe it's important to allow people to goof around, even if they're competing.

Edit; edit slip text of.

[Venkman]

Most players never get better at a FPS after playing it for a few weeks, yet they can play for months and months.

And lots of players don't get that they are improving anyway. Playing the same map rotation with the same friends, you're learning that map better and how your friends play better. This is not a game mechanic, but it absolutely does impact your performance.

And remember, I didn't say "flag football". I said "flag football at the annual picnic". That is a social catalyst only and you by and large don't care how good you did or didn't do. Every single other example you gave is a recurring sport-like activity where you're improving whether you know it or not. How long would a player keep player if they kept ending each match with no kills, 100 deaths, and complete ignorance as to why?

@Tarami: "goofing around", yes, absolutely. There's good examples of this, whether the Bristlebane Basket (I think that's what it was called) fireworks launcher from EQ1 through the fireworks in WoW to the most recent Arcanite Repear weapon/guitar. And there's /duel. And some would argue that BGs in the post-Arena world are too ;-)

This is all about the gray area between the top 1% performers in any organized activity and the nameless rabble that aren't paying attention and kinda just jerking around for a few minutes a month anyway. That gray area is when that lower end group starts wondering what they should be doing.

It's a balance between motivating players with tools they can use to organize into sessions that provide some meaningful immediate or eventual reward.

[tmp]

The n00bs will be pwnd because they were always meant to be pwnd.

In CS, the n00bs get pwnd just the same since they don't have the skills of how to play. The guy who takes them out with the DE is just better than them even if they themselves have an SMG or something.

Yes, and in CS and such that ability depends on vague "skill", the hand-to-eye coordination and spatial orientation that some people are born with, and some aren't. Kind of like some are born with genetic setup that makes them good potential runners able to achieve the best, and some don't.

MMOs in a way level the field here, by attaching more weight to time spent playing than other genres where the performance is more dependant on factors that are really beyond player's control (you're either born with "teh skill" or not. If not, it won't matter how much you practice, you'll still --relatively-- suck) This does turn off some, but at the same time appeals to others.

[slog]

I think the sheep would venture into the forest much more often if there weren't so many wolves.

Fixed.

Incidentally, the sheep are just a crutch for these wolves that can't quite cut it in wolf-only environment. Asking to have some easy prey to feed on delivered right under one's nose is about as carebear as it can get.

I see this argument a lot.  While I think it may be true for a small percentage of gamers, for the most part I think this argument is totally wrong.  I see it much differently.  I think the main reason many people like to PvP in a MMOG instead of an FPS is persistence.

Persistence means more than just tracking wins and losses on a ladder.  The game has to give a reason that matters for players to fight each other.  I'll walk through an example in Jumpgate, a Space MMO I used to play.

Haulers (SHEEP) would pilot their giant freighters and move goods from one space station to another to make a profit.  Pirates (WOLVES) would stalk these sheep and try to extort bribes from them in exchange for not blowing them up and their cargo.  Other pilots (ANTI-WOLVES) would try protect the sheep.  Big battles would then happen between the WOLVED and the ANTI-WOLVES.

Now, take away the Haulers.  What do you have left?  Quake in Space between PvPers  Without the sheep, the battles have no meaning.  Who wants to fight over NPCs?

Is this sustainable over the long term in a MMO?  I dunno.  There are a lot of design problems here, many of which have already been mentioned.   I'm not posting to solve the problem, I'm just trying to explain why Sheep are so important to the PvP experience.

[Nebu]

I agree with slog here and will add that a second factor in successful implementation is in making the sheep not feel like sheep.  The less people feel like they are sheep, the more often they'll go to slaughter.  MMO pvp is based on the principle that if sheep participate long enough and often enough that they'll no longer be the sheep... it's a diversion.  They're still sheep.  They're just sheep that take longer for the skilled player to slaughter. 

[tmp]

Now, take away the Haulers.  What do you have left?  Quake in Space between PvPers  Without the sheep, the battles have no meaning.  Who wants to fight over NPCs?

Who wants to fight over NPCs? About 1/3rd of EVE population (the ones who participate in PvP) Access to resources (and defending "your" turf you're able to officially claim) is the main drive behind wars, especially in persistent world where getting shot out of your ship means you need to spend lot of resources to get another.

And the sheep? They are purely optional in this setup and much like civillians/infrastructure that in regular conflicts are just means of production, could indeed be NPCs. If they are 'essential' in Jumpgate to give conflict any meaning, then i'd say it's the problem with how the game is set up -- too much simplification forcing the players to make-believe the 'reasons to fight each other' in lack of actual mechanics providing the incentive for that?

[wuzzman]

I think the sheep would venture into the forest much more often if there weren't so many wolves.

Fixed.

Incidentally, the sheep are just a crutch for these wolves that can't quite cut it in wolf-only environment. Asking to have some easy prey to feed on delivered right under one's nose is about as carebear as it can get.

I see this argument a lot.  While I think it may be true for a small percentage of gamers, for the most part I think this argument is totally wrong.  I see it much differently.  I think the main reason many people like to PvP in a MMOG instead of an FPS is persistence.

Persistence means more than just tracking wins and losses on a ladder.  The game has to give a reason that matters for players to fight each other.  I'll walk through an example in Jumpgate, a Space MMO I used to play.

Haulers (SHEEP) would pilot their giant freighters and move goods from one space station to another to make a profit.  Pirates (WOLVES) would stalk these sheep and try to extort bribes from them in exchange for not blowing them up and their cargo.  Other pilots (ANTI-WOLVES) would try protect the sheep.  Big battles would then happen between the WOLVED and the ANTI-WOLVES.

Now, take away the Haulers.  What do you have left?  Quake in Space between PvPers  Without the sheep, the battles have no meaning.  Who wants to fight over NPCs?

Is this sustainable over the long term in a MMO?  I dunno.  There are a lot of design problems here, many of which have already been mentioned.   I'm not posting to solve the problem, I'm just trying to explain why Sheep are so important to the PvP experience.

that is the logic of a moron. fact is solid gameplay + non-retarded match making system = EVERY SUCCESSFUL PVP GAME IN THE HISTORY OF GAMING. I don't know why people insist on making it more complicated then it really is, why are games like  UO and WoW examples of pvp games to developers? It's horse shit thinking, a no matter how many "reasons" you invent for pvp if your game doesn't have solid gameplay and non-retraded match making system the pvp fails and should never be considered a serious pvp game. Can we actually learn from PVP games to make PVP games for once? Please?

oh and wasn't jumpgate a colossal pile of fail?

[Checkers]

that is the logic of a moron. fact is solid gameplay + non-retarded match making system = EVERY SUCCESSFUL PVP GAME IN THE HISTORY OF GAMING. I don't know why people insist on making it more complicated then it really is, why are games like  UO and WoW examples of pvp games to developers? It's horse shit thinking, a no matter how many "reasons" you invent for pvp if your game doesn't have solid gameplay and non-retraded match making system the pvp fails and should never be considered a serious pvp game. Can we actually learn from PVP games to make PVP games for once? Please?

oh and wasn't jumpgate a colossal pile of fail?

Wut? 

There are people (like myself) who don't even consider a game to be a PvP game unless it's in the style of Eve/L2.  L2 has *horrid* gameplay and no match-making system whatsover, but I've had more fun in that PvP environment than any game before or since.  Neither Eve or L2 were unsuccessful.

[wuzzman]

that is the logic of a moron. fact is solid gameplay + non-retarded match making system = EVERY SUCCESSFUL PVP GAME IN THE HISTORY OF GAMING. I don't know why people insist on making it more complicated then it really is, why are games like  UO and WoW examples of pvp games to developers? It's horse shit thinking, a no matter how many "reasons" you invent for pvp if your game doesn't have solid gameplay and non-retraded match making system the pvp fails and should never be considered a serious pvp game. Can we actually learn from PVP games to make PVP games for once? Please?

oh and wasn't jumpgate a colossal pile of fail?

Wut? 

There are people (like myself) who don't even consider a game to be a PvP game unless it's in the style of Eve/L2.  L2 has *horrid* gameplay and no match-making system whatsover, but I've had more fun in that PvP environment than any game before or since.  Neither Eve or L2 were unsuccessful.

but they aren't serious pvp games by any stretch....I give some leeway to Eve because on paper I should like it, but L2? rofl.

[Slayerik]

Basically, resource/territory control is why Eve works. That and the one huge universe thing, along with a safe haven for if you get sick of the wild wild west.

Imagine if guilds in say WoW fought over portions of the map....say they retired one thousand needles and had rare ore there that was needed in awesome crafting shit. This would cause this ore to be very sought after, and if death mattered in WoW then you have the start of what Eve is doing (though vastly more complex than that). It would also cause people trying to ninja in and grab some. Guilds might end up in escalating battles over a simple valuable rock.

Have 10 zones like these, conquerable, possibly giving substancial buffs to the holders and see what happens. Some times you need monetary reasons to fight, that can produce animosity and that is when shit starts getting good. Or when one uber guild face fucks the server. YMMV :) Still, the hatred built towards said uberguild can go a long way in making 'meaningful PVP'

[Checkers]

that is the logic of a moron. fact is solid gameplay + non-retarded match making system = EVERY SUCCESSFUL PVP GAME IN THE HISTORY OF GAMING. I don't know why people insist on making it more complicated then it really is, why are games like  UO and WoW examples of pvp games to developers? It's horse shit thinking, a no matter how many "reasons" you invent for pvp if your game doesn't have solid gameplay and non-retraded match making system the pvp fails and should never be considered a serious pvp game. Can we actually learn from PVP games to make PVP games for once? Please?

oh and wasn't jumpgate a colossal pile of fail?

Wut? 

There are people (like myself) who don't even consider a game to be a PvP game unless it's in the style of Eve/L2.  L2 has *horrid* gameplay and no match-making system whatsover, but I've had more fun in that PvP environment than any game before or since.  Neither Eve or L2 were unsuccessful.

but they aren't serious pvp games by any stretch....I give some leeway to Eve because on paper I should like it, but L2? rofl.

Well, if excellent hand/eye coordination is your primary criteria for "serious" PvP than L2 was not serious.  I would have definitely enjoyed L2 more if it had improved combat mechanics, but the real PvP game was politics/resource control, which for many gamers are far more significant factors in their enjoyment.  In fact, without these elements there is little to redeem a PvP game for many players.  A game without them isn't "serious" enough.

[Ingmar]

that is the logic of a moron. fact is solid gameplay + non-retarded match making system = EVERY SUCCESSFUL PVP GAME IN THE HISTORY OF GAMING. I don't know why people insist on making it more complicated then it really is, why are games like  UO and WoW examples of pvp games to developers? It's horse shit thinking, a no matter how many "reasons" you invent for pvp if your game doesn't have solid gameplay and non-retraded match making system the pvp fails and should never be considered a serious pvp game. Can we actually learn from PVP games to make PVP games for once? Please?

oh and wasn't jumpgate a colossal pile of fail?

Wut? 

There are people (like myself) who don't even consider a game to be a PvP game unless it's in the style of Eve/L2.  L2 has *horrid* gameplay and no match-making system whatsover, but I've had more fun in that PvP environment than any game before or since.  Neither Eve or L2 were unsuccessful.

but they aren't serious pvp games by any stretch....I give some leeway to Eve because on paper I should like it, but L2? rofl.

Eve isn't a serious PVP game? The central premise of that game is corp vs corp war!

[kildorn]

that is the logic of a moron. fact is solid gameplay + non-retarded match making system = EVERY SUCCESSFUL PVP GAME IN THE HISTORY OF GAMING. I don't know why people insist on making it more complicated then it really is, why are games like  UO and WoW examples of pvp games to developers? It's horse shit thinking, a no matter how many "reasons" you invent for pvp if your game doesn't have solid gameplay and non-retraded match making system the pvp fails and should never be considered a serious pvp game. Can we actually learn from PVP games to make PVP games for once? Please?

oh and wasn't jumpgate a colossal pile of fail?

Wut? 

There are people (like myself) who don't even consider a game to be a PvP game unless it's in the style of Eve/L2.  L2 has *horrid* gameplay and no match-making system whatsover, but I've had more fun in that PvP environment than any game before or since.  Neither Eve or L2 were unsuccessful.

but they aren't serious pvp games by any stretch....I give some leeway to Eve because on paper I should like it, but L2? rofl.

Eve isn't a serious PVP game? The central premise of that game is corp vs corp war!

And like real corp warfare, it's all done via spreadsheets 

[Slayerik]

And like real corp warfare, it's all done via spreadsheets 

 

Well played, sir.

[wuzzman]

Basically, resource/territory control is why Eve works. That and the one huge universe thing, along with a safe haven for if you get sick of the wild wild west.

Imagine if guilds in say WoW fought over portions of the map....say they retired one thousand needles and had rare ore there that was needed in awesome crafting shit. This would cause this ore to be very sought after, and if death mattered in WoW then you have the start of what Eve is doing (though vastly more complex than that). It would also cause people trying to ninja in and grab some. Guilds might end up in escalating battles over a simple valuable rock.

Have 10 zones like these, conquerable, possibly giving substancial buffs to the holders and see what happens. Some times you need monetary reasons to fight, that can produce animosity and that is when shit starts getting good. Or when one uber guild face fucks the server. YMMV :) Still, the hatred built towards said uberguild can go a long way in making 'meaningful PVP'

Eve pvp works because it requires some skill to actually play. 80% of EvE playerbase don't care about who has what since they don't pvp anyway, and for that matter EvE's playerbase is not divided between several servers, if it was the territory/resource control mechanic wouldn't even work, due to lack of players that care. Death is so world shattering in EvE unless your an already established player, that pvp is actually done in small burst instead of constant warzone type action. on the flip side if EVE death penalty wasn't so punishing, people wouldn't care nearly as much because fighting over the territory would be pointless if your enemies had no down time.  So yeah EvE model is a balanced between barely having a fight when you want one, to people barely caring when you win one. If you translate to WoW? You wouldn't have nearly the amount of pvp'ers interested in WoW, fighting would be too anti-climatic to justify the time and energy spent defending or attacking.

Eve winner takes the all gameplay only appeals to what? 1% of people who actually play player vs player game? Lets be honest about where the real pvp market is at instead of idealizing to fit crappy game design.

[Slayerik]

Basically, resource/territory control is why Eve works. That and the one huge universe thing, along with a safe haven for if you get sick of the wild wild west.

Imagine if guilds in say WoW fought over portions of the map....say they retired one thousand needles and had rare ore there that was needed in awesome crafting shit. This would cause this ore to be very sought after, and if death mattered in WoW then you have the start of what Eve is doing (though vastly more complex than that). It would also cause people trying to ninja in and grab some. Guilds might end up in escalating battles over a simple valuable rock.

Have 10 zones like these, conquerable, possibly giving substancial buffs to the holders and see what happens. Some times you need monetary reasons to fight, that can produce animosity and that is when shit starts getting good. Or when one uber guild face fucks the server. YMMV :) Still, the hatred built towards said uberguild can go a long way in making 'meaningful PVP'

Eve pvp works because it requires some skill to actually play. 80% of EvE playerbase don't care about who has what since they don't pvp anyway, and for that matter EvE's playerbase is not divided between several servers, if it was the territory/resource control mechanic wouldn't even work, due to lack of players that care. Death is so world shattering in EvE unless your an already established player, that pvp is actually done in small burst instead of constant warzone type action. on the flip side if EVE death penalty wasn't so punishing, people wouldn't care nearly as much because fighting over the territory would be pointless if your enemies had no down time.  So yeah EvE model is a balanced between barely having a fight when you want one, to people barely caring when you win one. If you translate to WoW? You wouldn't have nearly the amount of pvp'ers interested in WoW, fighting would be too anti-climatic to justify the time and energy spent defending or attacking.

Eve winner takes the all gameplay only appeals to what? 1% of people who actually play player vs player game? Lets be honest about where the real pvp market is at instead of idealizing to fit crappy game design.

Death is not fucking world shattering, unless I do it to you hauling everything you have in empire and I suicide you. You think these 80% of people that don't PVP aren't rich? Don't be a douchebag. I was comparing how the system would possibly work in WoW, not saying they should or that this would be awesome game design.

[slog]

that is the logic of a moron. fact is solid gameplay + non-retarded match making system = EVERY SUCCESSFUL PVP GAME IN THE HISTORY OF GAMING. I don't know why people insist on making it more complicated then it really is, why are games like  UO and WoW examples of pvp games to developers? It's horse shit thinking, a no matter how many "reasons" you invent for pvp if your game doesn't have solid gameplay and non-retraded match making system the pvp fails and should never be considered a serious pvp game. Can we actually learn from PVP games to make PVP games for once? Please?

oh and wasn't jumpgate a colossal pile of fail?

Any system that involves match making breaks immersion, essentially turning your MMORPG in a MMORFPS.  WoW does a great job of this, to the point that World PvP (the only persistent PvP) is almost nonexistent.  That's fine for many PVPers.  I wasn't trying to address those folks.  I was talking about the PvPers who want PvP to mean something and are talking about Sheep.

[Slayerik]

that is the logic of a moron. fact is solid gameplay + non-retarded match making system = EVERY SUCCESSFUL PVP GAME IN THE HISTORY OF GAMING. I don't know why people insist on making it more complicated then it really is, why are games like  UO and WoW examples of pvp games to developers? It's horse shit thinking, a no matter how many "reasons" you invent for pvp if your game doesn't have solid gameplay and non-retraded match making system the pvp fails and should never be considered a serious pvp game. Can we actually learn from PVP games to make PVP games for once? Please?

oh and wasn't jumpgate a colossal pile of fail?

Any system that involves match making breaks immersion, essentially turning your MMORPG in a MMORFPS.  WoW does a great job of this, to the point that World PvP (the only persistent PvP) is almost nonexistent.  That's fine for many PVPers.  I wasn't trying to address those folks.  I was talking about the PvPers who want PvP to mean something and are talking about Sheep.

Don't forget about the Tarren Mills huge open PVP figths back in the day, before any honor system or anything....people fought because some lowbie got ganked. That lowbie knew a lvl 40. They ganked the ganker. Original ganker called his 50 buddy. War ensues. Some people, myself included, consider this the best of WOW PVP by far.

[wuzzman]

Basically, resource/territory control is why Eve works. That and the one huge universe thing, along with a safe haven for if you get sick of the wild wild west.

Imagine if guilds in say WoW fought over portions of the map....say they retired one thousand needles and had rare ore there that was needed in awesome crafting shit. This would cause this ore to be very sought after, and if death mattered in WoW then you have the start of what Eve is doing (though vastly more complex than that). It would also cause people trying to ninja in and grab some. Guilds might end up in escalating battles over a simple valuable rock.

Have 10 zones like these, conquerable, possibly giving substancial buffs to the holders and see what happens. Some times you need monetary reasons to fight, that can produce animosity and that is when shit starts getting good. Or when one uber guild face fucks the server. YMMV :) Still, the hatred built towards said uberguild can go a long way in making 'meaningful PVP'

Eve pvp works because it requires some skill to actually play. 80% of EvE playerbase don't care about who has what since they don't pvp anyway, and for that matter EvE's playerbase is not divided between several servers, if it was the territory/resource control mechanic wouldn't even work, due to lack of players that care. Death is so world shattering in EvE unless your an already established player, that pvp is actually done in small burst instead of constant warzone type action. on the flip side if EVE death penalty wasn't so punishing, people wouldn't care nearly as much because fighting over the territory would be pointless if your enemies had no down time.  So yeah EvE model is a balanced between barely having a fight when you want one, to people barely caring when you win one. If you translate to WoW? You wouldn't have nearly the amount of pvp'ers interested in WoW, fighting would be too anti-climatic to justify the time and energy spent defending or attacking.

Eve winner takes the all gameplay only appeals to what? 1% of people who actually play player vs player game? Lets be honest about where the real pvp market is at instead of idealizing to fit crappy game design.

Death is not fucking world shattering, unless I do it to you hauling everything you have in empire and I suicide you. You think these 80% of people that don't PVP aren't rich? Don't be a douchebag. I was comparing how the system would possibly work in WoW, not saying they should or that this would be awesome game design.

80% of the people who don't PVP are not interested in EVE's PvP. Last a I check it takes money to get a new ship after its been blown up, unless its insured. I think that's a bit world shattering, unless you played the game longer then a few months or insist on using only cheap ships (which have limited use in EVE combat besides target practice). it would be the equivalent of having to leveling up a new toon every time it gets killed in world pvp, in WoW terms.

slog for pvp to mean something death will have to be more punishing then usual which means pvp happens less often and being in an organized group and playing the game for a long period of time is extremely important before stepping into a pvp zone or seige battle. and there is no such thing as a mmorfps, the fact is PVP is PVP; a mmorpg with decent pvp should be able to look at games like street fighter, magic the gathering, tekken, counter strike, starcraft, commander and conquer, company of heroes in the eye without having the developers of those games rofl. the sacrificing solid gameplay for "immersion" may be fine, but it's no better then pve centric games by the same token.

[Checkers]

for pvp to mean something death will have to be more punishing then usual which means pvp happens less often

Are you the screaming German kid from that video? 

One of the nice things about games like Eve or L2 is that even though you are not explicitely fighting every single second you are always contributing to the power and influence of your guild relative to other guilds, no matter what you do.  You could be leveling or crafting or just shit talking.  In this sense, the PvP is more involving and not strictly limited to combat. 

[TheCastle]

but they aren't serious pvp games by any stretch....I give some leeway to Eve because on paper I should like it, but L2? rofl.

Quake
Quake 2
Quake 3 CPMA
CounterStrike
Painkiller

Are games that have no match making systems in place.
IMHO You cant get much more serious PVP than the Cyber athletes leage.

Quake 3 CPMA could arguably still be one of the most skill based first person shooters ever made.
I think what I am driving at here is that your point sounds to me a little like your oversimplifying things a bit.

Furthermore many match making systems already exist in WarHammer as far as level brackets or tiers. I wouldn't consider these mechanics to be the sole deciding factor that launched War into a potential CPL favorite. There are a lot of things going on under the hoods of these games. However you cant necessarily ignore that a good portion of how people see a game is what people expect before they actually even play the game. It seems to set an initial mind set that from then on remains in the back of that persons mind.

One example of this would be this phenomenon:
Is this a WOW clone?
1. If yes then complain that its a wow clone.
2. If not then complain that its not.

anyway
On the topic of helping people not feel like sheep I would take a good look at what happened with the counterstrike formula after COD4. Most of the changes that occurred are very subtle to the minds eye of the average player. Yet nearly all of the changes made it possible for sheep to feel more like wolves and in my opinion helped greatly with the success of the game.

One of the greatest changes, other than not having to wait until the end of a match after death, is something so simple yet so brilliant. A special spawning system that spawns sheep next to wolves (Right at the action) on their own team and a constant feeling of progression because the made the buying system from CS into a persistent XP system.

Instantly spacial reasoning and navigation requirements vastly reduced and the longer they play the more cool loot they obtain no matter what. Sheep feel more like wolves. At the cost of truly competitive environment the game allows everyone who plays to feel like a winner.

Also I believe that on pretty much every point Sipes was right on the money.
However I have to admit that as right as he is right now if we are talking about truly competitive environments then the MMOG is in a very poor position pull it off. Yes we are obviously approaching this with the wrong mind set because anything from a designers perspective should be possible if you can figure out how to do it right.

However in this situation I have to admit a hardcore skill based competitive PVP MMOG is a hell of a tall order.
Its already a tall order to bring a first person shooter to a truly competitive level in the first place. The more factors you add and the more mainstream you want it to be the less likely you are going to be to get it right.

I have been in a situation once where dm_ballistic was nearly crucified because it had a thin layer of FOG at one point. I remember that to this day. A single clip brush in the wrong place or if it takes 3 seconds too long to reach the mega health your map is deemed free for all only and tossed into a pile. I remember speaking with one of the head designers of CPMA about how removing the random spread from the shot gun was necessary. I don't agree that random things are instantly evil but I do see why he did it.
It gets ugly fast even under normal circumstances when trying to create a serious PVP environment.
Doing so in a MMOG would be an amazing feat. Absolutely amazing.

I don't want to say impossible.
We have things to consider still just looking at competition in games becoming main stream. Mainstream sports never change at all while games, especially MMOGs change constantly.

We have the fact that mainstream sports are easy for people to spectate where as the only way for games to become truly spectator friendly is if watching a game viewed more like some kind of random battle in one of the Lord Of The Rings movies. At that point you might not know why Legolas is flipping around in the air shooting flame arrows on people but it still looks cool and its fun to watch. So we have a very long way to go before before this kind of environment is possible. That is unless someone with enough money and power can approach this with the right mind set.

A RVR MMOG becoming main stream...
Think of the main things that it has going against it.

If their are true consequences and rewards for helping your seciety fight the great war.
Is it fun when your society is being obliterated?
Will it ever be your fault or will it be everyone elses?

If you make it so your society falters in somewhat less obstructive ways..
Then you Create artificial reasons to fight for territory when the vast majority of the people who play are only interested in personal gains.

If it doesn't really matter what you do..
Is it really RVR anymore or just WOW with some keeps..

[wuzzman]

for pvp to mean something death will have to be more punishing then usual which means pvp happens less often

Are you the screaming German kid from that video? 

One of the nice things about games like Eve or L2 is that even though you are not explicitely fighting every single second you are always contributing to the power and influence of your guild relative to other guilds, no matter what you do.  You could be leveling or crafting or just shit talking.  In this sense, the PvP game is more involving and not strictly limited to combat. 

if realm/territory/resource control was based entirely on pve, would it make a difference in those games? no.

TheCastle if you enter a game, you click on a server, you enter a room, you wait for the match to start, that's a match making system. a decent one would be the ability to click on the "enter the first available match", and an even better one would be "enter the first available match according to my ranking". geez you guys make things more complicated then it really is.

[Slayerik]

Words

From hardcore to sheep to COD4 to map making to sports to LOTRO and Legolas, to RVR, society, and keeps.

Helluva Post Number 1 lol