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

[Checkers]

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

If the game had great trash-talking AI, it might not.

[TheCastle]

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

Peter Jackson directed my post...

edit: keep the discussion going this thread is delectable
edit2: this thread is delectable .. have no clue why I said "keep it going" obviously its going to keep going lol...

[TheCastle]

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.

I was thinking that you were talking about a system that matches people by personal skill.
Match making, you are saying that the game has a decent server list and you can click it and it functions thats match making?

But that is a retarded system by definition to be retarded would be to have something that is functional but doesn't think about anything beyond that. The ability to breath doesn't make me smart.

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.

As you describe it ..

The most hardcore FPS PVP games in the history of gaming with the most serious player base I have ever experienced .. One time by chance I simply happened across a dude from Death Row, a top level competitive professional clan, the same one Thresh was the leader of many years ago when the CPL was starting, in 1 vs 1 tourney in quake world on dm6.
He shattered my soul it was disgusting.. and I was pretty good at the time to lol.

So my feelings are that unless the match making is pitting people vs equal skill against each other its not match making.
Why would you consider match making not to be in a retarded state if its most note worthy act is simple acquisition of client server architecture? My confusion stems from this assumption!

edit: as far as the point on the solid game play. I agree solid game play is important for both hardcore and casual players. But it doesn't necessarily bring them together, and for that matter it doesn't put them in a serious competitive environment either.

The question isnt weather or not we need solid game play. that's a given you always want that but rather how do you bring Sheep into a room filled with wolves and have them all stay friends after the massacre...

Match making in a competitive MMOG what would you describe that as? random encounters like quake world?

[tmp]

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.

I don't quite see why the developers of street fighter/tekken and magic the gathering should rotfl at the idea of MMO, considering mmorpg combat lands somewhere in the middle between these two in terms of gameplay -- you have character equipped with number of skills, exact selection of skills can be to a degree customized. You use the skills of your character vs the ones opponent uses against you, the guy with hp bar depleted first loses. Beat-em up games put more stress on the player reflexes while card games put more stress on available amount of the skills to select from. but the core gameplay between these three... well it really ain't that different.

But perhaps i'm just missing your point here. In which case... what exactly were you trying to say?

[Megrim]

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.

I don't quite see why the developers of street fighter/tekken and magic the gathering should rotfl at the idea of MMO, considering mmorpg combat lands somewhere in the middle between these two in terms of gameplay -- you have character equipped with number of skills, exact selection of skills can be to a degree customized. You use the skills of your character vs the ones opponent uses against you, the guy with hp bar depleted first loses. Beat-em up games put more stress on the player reflexes while card games put more stress on available amount of the skills to select from. but the core gameplay between these three... well it really ain't that different.

But perhaps i'm just missing your point here. In which case... what exactly were you trying to say?

That the pvp in those games is fun.

[tmp]

That the pvp in those games is fun.

No, it's not.

srsly, opinions assholes and all that.

[Megrim]

Well ok, true. But let's clarify it by saying that "the pvp is fun for people who like that sort of pvp". Now, this might sound like a tautology until you realise that paradoxically enough, what we find is that "pvp in pvp+ mmorpgs is not fun for those who enjoy that sort of pvp".

[tmp]

Well ok, true. But let's clarify it by saying that "the pvp is fun for people who like that sort of pvp". Now, this might sound like a tautology until you realise that paradoxically enough, what we find is that "pvp in pvp+ mmorpgs is not fun for those who enjoy that sort of pvp".

I'm likely still misreading it because i think given the context ('devs of magic the gathering and street fighter doing roflolol at mmorpg pvp') this doesn't actually mean anything. I mean, people who enjoy the beat-em up PvP aren't exactly the very same population group that enjoys the M:tG kind of PvP. And mmorpg kind of PvP (along with mmorpg gameplay in general) is just yet another type of PvP that appeals to yet another type of people. So unless there's also claim that devs of beat-em up games also go roflolol at the devs of M:tG and vice versa because their respective player bases likely don't find that other type of PvP fun, i really don't get how the justification that the laughter should be had is 'because that is fun and this is not'. 

[Megrim]

I can only approximate as to what wuzzman's meaning is. For me, what he is saying is basically that any "pvp developer" from his non-mmo list would laugh at the contrived rubbish that pvp+ mmo players have to go through in order to have fun within that game-context. By extension, loling would also be directed at the developers who go hard-out (*cough* Mythic) to promote themselves as pvp+ and then fall flat on their face.

[tmp]

Ahh, in the sense of entry barriers being higher than in these other game types? OK, hopefully can get reply from wuzzman to either confirm or clarify, but yes could see that as valid distinction. Not sure if it's one worth laughing (like mentioned previously i think mmorpgs just weight differently the need for certain inherent skills in the player vs reqirement of invested time/effort... and it could be argued that e.g. M:tG games also have the investment and 'gear acquisition' requirements built into them) but certainly, it is a point just the same.

[wuzzman]

I can only approximate as to what wuzzman's meaning is. For me, what he is saying is basically that any "pvp developer" from his non-mmo list would laugh at the contrived rubbish that pvp+ mmo players have to go through in order to have fun within that game-context. By extension, loling would also be directed at the developers who go hard-out (*cough* Mythic) to promote themselves as pvp+ and then fall flat on their face.

pretty much what I was getting at. Mmorpgs are behind PVP in general by a decade, its almost as if the developers of mmo's simply never played a competitive game in their life and was asked to shoe'horn it in because they were running out of pve to design.

tmp sure Magic the Gathering or any TCG for that matter requires a money investment, in some TCG's the bigger wallet > small wallet. But then again with Magic the Gathering, when you do learn the core gameplay and the finesse in deck building your chances of winning sky rockets. Your win/loss ratio is tied to your skill and your knowledge of the game and not upward power scaling which is again largely tied down to time/money spent in game, which you can't possible say for the majority of Mmorpgs. Especially when the majority of those mmo's focus on your "world pvp" mechanics (gank fest) and replicating lord of the ring battles (zergfest), in place of making a solid strategic game (99% of rpg battles are fun because they require strategy...), where you actually have to stop and THINK about how to beat a opponent with a brain and not just treat players like a fresh aggro-ed mob. In fact if WAR simply had large numbers of NPC's seige/defend keeps instead of players, I don't think the playerbase would have told the difference.

Yes TheCastle a decent match making system has pits players of equal skill against each other. If Fury had that much maybe it wouldn't have died...wait if Fury had a **** tutorial it wouldn't have died nearly as quickly and would have at least kept enough players for their match making system to actually work  . But until all mmo's come with big green button at the right hand corner of the screen called "ENTER FIRST AVAILABLE PVP MATCH NOW!!!", then for now, that counts as a match making system.

[slog]

This thread is now Vault quality.

[TheCastle]

If you sit back and look at everything with out a microscope for a second.

Increasing the skill requirements in a game will reduce your potential customers.
Joe the plumber can play WOW.

You can look at street fighter and Tekkan and say its perfect in your opinion, but basing your game around tougher smarter opponents means less people are going to continue playing.

I believe at the heart of it all that is the problem with PVP based MMO design.

[Nebu]

Increasing the skill requirements in a game will reduce your potential customers.
Joe the plumber can play WOW.

Sorry, this isn't correct.  You can have very high skill requirements in games as long as a learning curve exists within the game to bring the less skilled player up to a higher level of ability. 

Examples: FPS, Guitar hero, Rock band, etc. 

You can demand plenty of skill from your playerbase as long as a) you provide a fun mechanism of training players and b) you don't demand so much out of the gate that you immediately turn your players off.  WoW succeeds here as it appears easy in the beginning but gets quite complex in the endgame, particularly in the arena and raiding subgames. 

[TheCastle]

Increasing the skill requirements in a game will reduce your potential customers.
Joe the plumber can play WOW.

Sorry, this isn't correct.  You can have very high skill requirements in games as long as a learning curve exists within the game to bring the less skilled player up to a higher level of ability. 

Examples: FPS, Guitar hero, Rock band, etc. 

You can demand plenty of skill from your playerbase as long as a) you provide a fun mechanism of training players and b) you don't demand so much out of the gate that you immediately turn your players off.  WoW succeeds here as it appears easy in the beginning but gets quite complex in the endgame, particularly in the arena and raiding subgames. 

I agree with your points in general.
Keep in mind that the bar for "success" is a bit unrealistic in this thread. Using WOW as an example for everything.

My understanding is that the vast majority of people who play WOW are not end game raiders.
Likewise the further up the totem pole you go the numbers of people who play that content drops.
The most hardcore content has the fewest people while the most casual content has the most.

If this is true then where would PVP fit into the totem pole?

looking at your examples

Examples: FPS, Guitar hero, Rock band, etc.

FPS: are there any PVP first person shooters that have as many players as WOW right now? Halo maybe? The largest I recall I have ever seen a multiplayer FPS get was around 500k players. About where Warhammer is right now right?

Guitar Hero: Very large player base as far as PVE content. If the game was PVP only do you think it would be as big as it is now?
Lets even take this into the casual market for a moment.
If bejeweled was PVP only would it still have such a large player base?

Even with proper match making. Hell give each example superb match making.
I cant think of an example right now where skewing a game, with a huge player base, for PVP or large scale RVR would at least maintain the same number of people playing. And in most cases it ends up being simply because the second you play human opponents is the second you drop any semblance of casual interaction. I think at the very least the bar for success on a PVP game needs to be much lower.

A buddy of mine had a funny quote
"The only time PVP can ever be casual is when I am 10 levels over the other guy."

[Slayerik]

You can't take Bejeweled and 'make it PVP'

You can't take Guitar Hero and 'make it PVP'


You are just like the developers that don't plan enough into the PVP in their games and try to 'make it PVP' at the last minute. How many people you think play COD4, CS, Halo, TF2 vrs MMOs (or even just WoW) in the US?

The majority of these players are casual as well. Only a very 'elite' small percentage get into real tourneys, the rest frag or join their buddies for some VOIP killin fun.

[Nebu]

Castle: If you want to talk about pvp, you'll have to qualify the market.  In the west, pvp games beyond fps are niche.  In the east, games with a pvp component are still quite popular.  I'm a lot less versed in what makes games successful in non-western markets, so I'll leave that discussion to someone that actually can speak intelligently to it.  As I said earlier in this thread: players don't mind losing in pvp games as long as the losing is fun and not too penal.  I'll stand by that with the success of fps games in the west.  

[tmp]

tmp sure Magic the Gathering or any TCG for that matter requires a money investment, in some TCG's the bigger wallet > small wallet. But then again with Magic the Gathering, when you do learn the core gameplay and the finesse in deck building your chances of winning sky rockets. Your win/loss ratio is tied to your skill and your knowledge of the game and not upward power scaling which is again largely tied down to time/money spent in game, which you can't possible say for the majority of Mmorpgs.

Since the card games operate on business model where their profit comes from getting people to continually buy new card packs, doesn't this introduce issue of power creep with newly introduced sets? While yes, your chances of winning increase when you learn the gameplay, literally the same thing can be said about the mmorpg -- on comparable level of characters' power it's the players understanding of the 'core gameplay and the finesse' that determines the outcome.

I really don't see that much difference here, tbh. Right now TCGs require player to spend lot of money in order to increase their odds to win, while mmorpg's put stress on the time requirement. As the mmorpg's introduce increasing RMT element as alternative for people who cannot spend that time, the difference between the two narrows even further. You might need to spend few hundreds to get gear for the character so they become competitive, but then they *are* competitive and the success depends on your own ability to play and react to your opponent(s)

Especially when the majority of those mmo's focus on your "world pvp" mechanics (gank fest) and replicating lord of the ring battles (zergfest), in place of making a solid strategic game (99% of rpg battles are fun because they require strategy...), where you actually have to stop and THINK about how to beat a opponent with a brain and not just treat players like a fresh aggro-ed mob. In fact if WAR simply had large numbers of NPC's seige/defend keeps instead of players, I don't think the playerbase would have told the difference.

We run into personal preferences area here. Must say my tastes differ from yours -- i find pre-arranged matches boring to the point of tears and so can't really get into RTS genre (there's also lack of the hands-on component in these but that's another story) It is odd you talk about having to think about how to beat the opponent as part of 'solid strategic game', yet fail to recognize that to succesfully set up situation where you can "gank" the opponent rather than get ganked yourself... in continually changing environment, requires exactly that. Being able to outwit the opponent to the point where you place yourself in favoured situation before the conflict even starts, that's strategic core of real world conflicts. This doesn't change when these conflicts are moved onto virtual plane. And obviously this model really doesn't have much room for the match-making service, since such match-making would pretty much defeat the very strategic element to it.

Does it mean the pre-arranged 'give me a foozle to duel with... now' model is somehow inferior? Of course not, it just sheds some of the tactical element and puts focus on the rest. It'll appeal to some people more, but i'd never say these extra artificial limitations are something that makes it a sole experience  of 'solid strategic game that requires people to THINK'.

[TheCastle]

You can't take Bejeweled and 'make it PVP'

You can't take Guitar Hero and 'make it PVP'


You are just like the developers that don't plan enough into the PVP in their games and try to 'make it PVP' at the last minute. How many people you think play COD4, CS, Halo, TF2 vrs MMOs (or even just WoW) in the US?

The majority of these players are casual as well. Only a very 'elite' small percentage get into real tourneys, the rest frag or join their buddies for some VOIP killin fun.

Yeah I see what you mean.
However in this discussion even people who are planning around the PVP from the inception of the project are not quite getting it right. I suppose we wont really know how Warhammer will do until it has some more time to grow. But even in the case of Warhammer I feel a little like they added plenty of options into the game to fall back on just in case the RVR didn't work. It ended up backfiring a bit when alternate options turned out to be more rewarding because of a couple bad calls but they didn't kill the game yet imho.

More planning isn't necessarily going to solve the problem here.
We are left with design Darwinism or the possible chance someone with the capabilities simply happens across a new formula that blows the floodgates wide open. That is how I feel emotionally about this right now.

Anyway I need to do some research to see just how big the playerbase for the PVP content is for Cod4, TF2 ect.
Whats the biggest PVP game right now?
I suppose I am not really qualified to speak on this if I don't even know that hehe..

[Mrbloodworth]

This thread is now Vault quality.

[Soln]

one thing I haven't seen mentioned is kinds of participation.  Skill/Wolves vs. Casual/Sheep players should also be considered in non-combat professions.  E.g. crafting, exploring.

Some of the most fun I had in SWG was crafting great weapons and buffs, since the actual PvP was pretty thin.  While some guilds had high-end (skilled) crafters, a lot of the best crafters opted to be independent.  They might still feed their preferred faction and guild, but they got better reputations and business by being a force unto themselves.  I am not exaggerating.  Now, I don't understand why more depth couldn't be put into crafting in other mmo's such that it had a pvp element instead of just a feeder system into combat PvP.  It's probably because most mmo's control itemization heavily.  But getting crafters to compete against one another (e.g. for recipes, resources, sales location, contracts) for reputation and skill would be a welcome dimension for me at least.  Right now, crafting in most games is just a guild function and it can be more.

An other option is exploring.  I thought the exploring skill in Eve 1+year ago was supposed to be a new navigating/discovery kind of skill. Did that ever happen?  Was there any mini-game or depth to opening new areas or was it just a guild spying game?

[schild]

If bejeweled was PVP would it still have such a large player base?

It's called Puzzle Quest. And it has been released on every major console and handheld and has sold incredibly well and I would not be shocked if it got released for iPhones and Android handsets.

When trying to argue a point, it's really best if you know more about the market then what you see on the frontpage of AOL Games.

[Ironwood]

DAMN YOU SCHILD.


Yeah, I was gonna post the Puzzle Quest thing.  Lol @ Slayerik.

Noob.

[Slayerik]

DAMN YOU SCHILD.


Yeah, I was gonna post the Puzzle Quest thing.  Lol @ Slayerik.

Noob.

Damnit. Shitfuck. Cocklick.

Well, whatever. I'll stick to my other points though, and for the record I have never been a console guy. I own a Wii so my wife could play rock band and bowling.

[Slayerik]

An other option is exploring.  I thought the exploring skill in Eve 1+year ago was supposed to be a new navigating/discovery kind of skill. Did that ever happen?  Was there any mini-game or depth to opening new areas or was it just a guild spying game?

Yes, you use probes to scan for these exploration sites. Some are hacking sites, other archeology sites, some are combat Complexes , and last are hidden asteroid belts. All of these are profitable, but time consuming. The best money is in 0.0, and sheep do go out to 0.0 for this purpose. Luckily for them, they are in Covert Op ships that are near impossible to kill.

[TheCastle]

If bejeweled was PVP only would it still have such a large player base?

It's called Puzzle Quest. And it has been released on every major console and handheld and has sold incredibly well and I would not be shocked if it got released for iPhones and Android handsets.

When trying to argue a point, it's really best if you know more about the market then what you see on the frontpage of AOL Games.

Out standing
At first glance this is .. PVP bejeweled.

Challenge your skills in single-player campaign mode, or battle your friends via multiplayer. Experience a puzzle game like nothing you have played before!

look I don't want to pretend that I know everything. That I am some kind of forum demigod.
But I can make the same point for this game that I did with bejeweled right?

Imagine if puzzle quest focused on PVP instead of PVE?

Actually I goofed up plain and simple.
Too much speculation and not enough facts.

Sorry

[Fordel]

If bejeweled was PVP would it still have such a large player base?

It's called Puzzle Quest. And it has been released on every major console and handheld and has sold incredibly well and I would not be shocked if it got released for iPhones and Android handsets.

When trying to argue a point, it's really best if you know more about the market then what you see on the frontpage of AOL Games.

Puzzle Pirates also has PvP !

[TheCastle]

If bejeweled was PVP would it still have such a large player base?

It's called Puzzle Quest. And it has been released on every major console and handheld and has sold incredibly well and I would not be shocked if it got released for iPhones and Android handsets.

When trying to argue a point, it's really best if you know more about the market then what you see on the frontpage of AOL Games.

Puzzle Pirates also has PvP !

omg lol..
I was just checking that game out to see if it did.
Seems though that its like WOW PVE first with PVP tacked on.
But like I said I don't know for certain..

What is a Vault Quality thread? lol...

[tazelbain]

You are tripping on cat urine if you think Puzzle Pirates is in anyway simular to WoW.

[Nebu]

What is a Vault Quality thread? lol...

Go HERE and read a thread from any forum you choose.  I take no responsibility for lost brain cells. 

[TheCastle]

You are tripping on cat urine if you think Puzzle Pirates is in anyway simular to WoW.

WOW == PVE first PVP second
I take no responsibility, it certainly was not intended, for the thought that puzzle pirates == World of Warcraft..

Well sorry guys!

exiting stage left haha!

Are Dev's Bad?
Depends on the devs!

do MMO PVP Games Not Work?
Trying to shoe horn ideas from a different type of game into your own game is the problem.
Though I am too cynical to buy into the idea that with a PVP game you will have nearly as high of a player base threshold when compared to game based around the idea of PVE first and PVP second. Selling your game around PVP is always going to cause people to get stage fright.

Death in PVE and PVP will never be a problem if:
1. You know why you died
2. You felt it was your fault you died (Not cheated)
3. Punishment doesn't feel too harsh

I suppose that's about it!
later everyone!

[Kageru]

I'm still not sure how you can provide PvP incentives outside of a match summary screen without breaking the game. I played CS and TF2 for quite a while and enjoyed it. I wasn't uber, or even that good, but I had my moments of glory and when I lost I knew it was only because I'd been outplayed. This is partly why hacking is so poisonous to the online competitive games. Not so much because the cheater wins, there's no permanent rewards anyway, but because it makes the loser wonder if they really lost fairly. If you give incentives to the winners of these games, whether territory or gear, then I know going into the game that the battle is explicitly not fair and a lost on my part may represent widening that divide. This reduces participation rates and can enter a negative cycle where increased competition is constantly winnowing out the less skilled / advantaged. WoW arena's are probably at this point which is why they've had to tap the less competitive battlegrounds to keep the system working.

The PvE cost is substantial too. Gameplay mechanics that would be fun in PvE are veto'd because PvP balance is so delicate.

Frankly competitive PvP should be an FPS style environment. Small and balanced numbers, classes, gear and environment and no grind before you are allowed to compete. This is basically what Blizzard did with the tournament servers I believe? Broader MMO PvP should only be for fun and decorative rewards because it won't be balanced. And the people who like it the most tend to be those who revel and exploit that imbalance.

[UnSub]

One good idea that Fury had is that, at the end of the match, both winners and losers received loot for playing and got to roll on a chance to get other loot. Winners did get slightly better loot than losers, but everybody got something.

Agreed on the cheating bit: a PvP game you can cheat at and get away with it is one that isn't going to draw the crowds for very long.

[LC]

One good idea that Fury had is that, at the end of the match, both winners and losers received loot for playing and got to roll on a chance to get other loot. Winners did get slightly better loot than losers, but everybody got something.

Which is wrong. You shouldn't get rewarded for losing. Only someone who never wins could be happy about that.

I was in some club during high school. Every year the club would attend a national competition. I was competing in some lame technology challenge event. I was given instructions, rules, and a list of materials. Using those I had to create a device that could accomplish a task. In the end mine was the only working device at the competition. The others completely failed. They decided that the rules had been too tough, or they hadn't given everyone adequate time to complete the task. So they decided to keep my fucking winners trophy, and give everyone a participation certificate instead. When my turn came up I told them to shove the certificate up their asses, and to give me my first place trophy. I told them it wasn't my fault the other participants were retards. I was booted out of that club, and not allowed to rejoin the next year. I might not have gotten my trophy, but at least I didn't feel like one of the losers as I was escorted out.

[Venkman]

No.

These games are about invested time first, achievement second. Power disparity comes from that, in that order. So the people who can always win will be the only people able to advance?

Wrong. The best games (and those most successful, at least in the western markets) ensure that everyone gets something for their time. The winners merely get a lot more, but the losers don't go home emptyhanded.

I'm sorry your science fair epeen wasn't stroked well enough or whatever, but the games that don't reward the losers in some form are either extremely niche, an entire market unto themselves, or closed.