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

[Slayerik]

You guys should take note of some of the major differences and similarities between real life sports and competitive games.

In Football the people who play and are known are much fewer in number compared to the vast ocean of spectators.
In WOW there are pretty much zero spectators and everyone is trying to compete with each other in a vast sea of faces for the same prizes.
That is a pretty huge difference.

Furthermore I am willing to bet that a pretty significant fraction of people that fill each stadium have never even played football themselves to any serious degree. I don't believe that playing a quick game of football with your friends on a Saturday morning is at all comparable to playing some scenarios in War. Playing Football with your friends on a Saturday morning is more comparable to playing some quake dm with your friends.

And on another note:
Time investment for superior gear is actually similar to the time investment it takes to get in shape and learn how to play a real sport competitively. If you think you can just wake up one day and decide you can play professional football or even run a 3 minute mile you will possibly have about the same chances of success as you would attempting to beat someone who is well geared and 10+ levels over you in 1 vs 1. Actually I would think you would have almost zero chance of competing at all under those circumstances.

So I do think it is somewhat hard to say gaining better gear and tweaking out your toon is not comparable to training hard for a sport in real life. Its also similar in the respect that most people at tip top shape perform about the same depending on how they trained. Exactly like when you compete against others in a game when everyone has the best gear available.

I suppose the only defining difference in this case would be that over time gear continues to get better and better because of the nature of the mmog. Well I suppose in that same respect the best professional basketball team from now would also stomp the best basketball team from 20 years ago. Escalation is an observable phenomenon in real life sports why not games too?

So in summary, 'life ain't fair....get grinding fuckers?'

[wuzzman]

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'.

four days without the internet and finally I get a post like this. I like to address your first claim then the second.

1. The yu-gi-oh deck I made 4 years ago with 40 bucks, is as competitive now against players of equal skill who spent 3 times as much on a single deck as it was back when I started getting good at the game. A good TCG provides options, not absolute power creep each expansion. Contrast that to an mmorpg, where levels provide absolute power creep, and where skill doesn't budge that fact at all unless the higher leve/gearl player is a retard and the lower level/gear player is bring his A++ game.

2. You pretty much describe the difference between boxing/mma and street fighting. People pay to watch boxing/mma, people only bet on street fights they don't pay to see them. One is competition and is done out of the spirit of competition, the other is just violence. Sure I can bring a gun to a knife fight and call myself the smarter one for "setting up the situation in my favor". But does that make what me the better fighter? I'll say no. Ganking a player (talking in mmorpg terms) is ok because they should be alert at all times and thus the act of managing to gank him proves you are of the superior intellect. Which may be true, but it is very much false to think that your actually competed with the player who you noob-whacked to the stratosphere. All you did was commit an act of violence, regardless of the reason, all you did was kill a player who for the most part had no intentions on fighting you, or even worse has no chance of winning. PK is different from PVP, one is wolf vs sheep while the other is fighter vs fighter. You seem to enjoy PK, you consider it strategic, and I can't argue with you if you want to commit to that point. But point out that PK, RVR, sandbox games don't even require a balance game to actually function. For example killing lower level players is ok because its up to the lower level player to figure out how to run away or play perfectly in order to beat his much stronger aggressor. It doesn't matter if there is a level/gear treadmill because its just another part of "setting up the situation in your favor". Thus grind helps PK because PK'ers don't want competition, just a kill count. Tell me what is the difference between killing a player vs killing a monster in the world pvp/"win or lose your land" games?

[Slayerik]

The difference, in Eve anyways, is sometimes your enemies will set up 'bait ships'. You think you are scoring an easy kill, the moment you commit and perform an act of aggression (thus removing your escape via gate)  the wolves that set you up rip you to shreds. Happened to me before. Happened to a couple gangs I've been in as well. Tactics. Wolf in sheep's clothing FTW :)

But yeah, in general sheep will be sheep.

[TheCastle]

So in summary, 'life ain't fair....get grinding fuckers?'

One of the biggest goals for any designer/developer is to make the "Get grinding fuckers" part more palatable right?

If you look at the more successful formulas in game design. Especially in recent years this is more noticeable.
We implore design methods to make things seem less repetitive.

Questing for xp was a huge step forward for WOW compared to grinding mobs for example.
And to some extent I would not be shocked if the "Life isn't fair" mentality continues to gain in some popularity over the years. What with the care bear everyone wins mentality you see spoon fed to people by most devs these days. Its a knee jerk reaction to the feeling of non progression people complain about, a bandied, not the end all be all solution to keep the largest audience possible.

[wuzzman]

So in summary, 'life ain't fair....get grinding fuckers?'

One of the biggest goals for any designer/developer is to make the "Get grinding fuckers" part more palatable right?

If you look at the more successful formulas in game design. Especially in recent years this is more noticeable.
We implore design methods to make things seem less repetitive.

Questing for xp was a huge step forward for WOW compared to grinding mobs for example.
And to some extent I would not be shocked if the "Life isn't fair" mentality continues to gain in some popularity over the years. What with the care bear everyone wins mentality you see spoon fed to people by most devs these days. Its a knee jerk reaction to the feeling of non progression people complain about, a bandied, not the end all be all solution to keep the largest audience possible.

if you don't grind pve your a care bear....I see the logic, I smell the fail

[TheCastle]

if you don't grind pve your a care bear....I see the logic, I smell the fail

Well there is one problem with this.
And what Slayerik mentioned that I suppose I didn't convey very well.

Let me try again.
If something doesn't feel like grind it isn't grind. You incorporate proper flow techniques into the gaming experience. You convey times when the player changes the flow of the game.
Gind is a beast that if dealt with correctly is always lurking just out of sight. Devs have a vast toolset at their disposal to deal with this beast. Its an entirely different topic even.

In short, saying
"life ain't fair....get grinding fuckers?"
Is a non issue.

Whats more important is how people feel when they play the game.

Let me ask you.
What do you feel is grind?

[wuzzman]

if you don't grind pve your a care bear....I see the logic, I smell the fail

Well there is one problem with this.
And what Slayerik mentioned that I suppose I didn't convey very well.

Let me try again.
If something doesn't feel like grind it isn't grind. You incorporate proper flow techniques into the gaming experience. You convey times when the player changes the flow of the game.
Gind is a beast that if dealt with correctly is always lurking just out of sight. Devs have a vast toolset at their disposal to deal with this beast. Its an entirely different topic even.

In short, saying
"life ain't fair....get grinding fuckers?"
Is a non issue.

Whats more important is how people feel when they play the game.

Let me ask you.
What do you feel is grind?

grind is grind. grind is the amount of time it takes to reach the games last power level. You can not disguise grind, grind IS grind, it is not a feeling; its a quantifiable period of time between the lowest level and the highest level. Its not up to the Devs to make the grind feel less grindy, because the only way for you not to feel the grind, is if you didn't have grind in the first place.Trying to placebo factor your gameplay only increases burn out and decreases retention. It is up to smart Devs to remove the grind altogether or stop calling yourself a pvp focused game. Call it PK, say you have dedicated HARDCORE servers, but don't bother trying sell your boot-leged version of PvP fresh out of the mmo-factory, because you will fall flat on your face.

Blizzard is happy when new designers attempt to "disguise" the grind of their game. Why? Because they know you can't "hide" grind, because it is a quantifiable period of time. Players feel it, no matter how well you attempt to disguise it there is only a short period of time a new game has to convince players that their God mode WoW accounts that they spent the last year earning isn't nearly as fun as being a nobody in your game.  Why would fully decked out players in WoW want to go back to the time when they had no high level alts and pretty much was a low leveled nobody? People try new games, find that they are grindy as hell and go back to their God mode WoW accounts. Plain and simple, you cannot disguise grind.

[ashrik]

The defining aspect of the genre is The Grind.

However, it definitely is up to the developers to try and hide it as best they can.

How they do so is entirely up to them. But the only real difference between The Grind and everything else you don't get immediately is how much the player enjoys it. I'll say again, everything you don't get immediately is a grind. Either you grind to get it, you grind to keep it, or you grind to use it.

Rating, gear, advancement, storylines, status, titles, mounts, quests, attunements, reputation, influence, wards, commemorative 9/11 plates, karma, experience, territory. All of it. It's all part of The Grind. Let's not kid ourselves.

Is this in direct opposition to the pick-up-and-go PVP game? As it's been presented to us today- yes.

Warcraft has the double advantage of disguising the grind well, to new players, and representing as the old dog to semi-veteran players who may be loathe to uproot themselves and start anew. The developer of new game X can preach all he want about how WoW has poisoned or tainted the minds of MMO players. Essentially, he'll be correct. They've become poisoned by quality, polish, companionship, and complacency at this point. It's a mighty tall mountain for any company to overcome.

Why not at this point simply replace the word game with the word grind?

That's my point, at least.

[TheCastle]

Plain and simple, you cannot disguise grind.

Did you feel that it was a grind to play through Zelda?
Would you consider doing a series of completely unique events a grind?
Do you realize that if Warhammer simply had its level cap at 80 people would have felt they progressed faster even though it was at the same rate?

Do you see doing a series of interesting solo quests to gain a few levels to be less of a grind than killing 250 blue crabs over the course of 4 hours in a group of 6 people that took 45 minutes to get to a camp?

I believe that something can only be considered a grind at the moment that repetition becomes apparent to the player in a negative light.
This is usually around the time when the player realizes that he would lose nothing as far as his playing experience to simply be able to skip everything and achieve his next goal now rather than later.
If you define grind by what you are saying then any game where it does not end the second you start the game immediately is defined as a grind.

Too me that seems rather strange use for the term.
Why not at this point simply replace the word game with the word grind?
Can you give me one game that is not a grind by this definition?

[UnSub]

grind is grind. grind is the amount of time it takes to reach the games last power level. You can not disguise grind, grind IS grind, it is not a feeling; its a quantifiable period of time between the lowest level and the highest level.

So the only way not to have a grind is to start off at the max / last power level. Sorry, but that's wrong.

The grind is the period where the character advancement mechanism becomes something that is unfun to the player. It is highly subjective and can vary amongst groups of players - see the discussions regarding WAR's scenarios and the way they advance character development - but the aim is to minimise the grind, and therefore the burnout, among your target audience.

The grind can set in at max level too - after all, if you've got everything and all that is left is to try and get rare items via play, things can get repetitive / unfun on that character fairly quickly if the system isn't well managed.

[Venkman]

grind is the amount of time it takes to reach the games last power level.

No. Grind is a state of mind about the path to the end of the game. If you're focused on getting to that last level then a) you were pre-convinced something there was better than everything before it; and, b) you don't care about anything before it so are only looking for the fastest/efficient path through what you otherwise deem as an annoying roadblock.

That's how you arrive at the feeling of "grind". This is not hardcoded in the game.

• You could call COD4 a grind to 55. The players might change but the game is the exact same maps over and over and let's face it you're only really doing two or three things, and those are mere variants of the same activity (shoot, throw grenade, place mortar).
• You could call Fallout 3 a grind to 20. You could easily find the single most efficient path to the end of the game.

WoW improved things slightly at first when they (and EQ2) rewarded much more for XP from quests than XP from being a sociopath ;-) But it's still a VERY grindy game, particularly after you hit the level cap. By then players become accustomed to easy achievement that is no longer as easy to find. So they roll and alt and quest-grind through 1-70, or they grind at the cap (raid, arena, faction). But both results are because the reward is more important than the path.

Ergo, state of mind.

[tmp]

2. You pretty much describe the difference between boxing/mma and street fighting. People pay to watch boxing/mma, people only bet on street fights they don't pay to see them. One is competition and is done out of the spirit of competition, the other is just violence.

It is also difference between sport and war. One of them involves violence yes, but both are competition -- in case of war the competition just focuses on being the last one still standing. And yes, people don't pay to watch wars, but this doesn't make them any less "PvP".

Sure I can bring a gun to a knife fight and call myself the smarter one for "setting up the situation in my favor". But does that make what me the better fighter? I'll say no. Ganking a player (talking in mmorpg terms) is ok because they should be alert at all times and thus the act of managing to gank him proves you are of the superior intellect. Which may be true, but it is very much false to think that your actually competed with the player who you noob-whacked to the stratosphere. All you did was commit an act of violence, regardless of the reason, all you did was kill a player who for the most part had no intentions on fighting you, or even worse has no chance of winning. PK is different from PVP, one is wolf vs sheep while the other is fighter vs fighter.

A lot of convenient generalizations here, and lot of it false. Fights in open-world environment will frequently enough involve two 'wolves' as you put it fighting each other, and both of them looking for that fight. No different from two players 'competing' in match of e-sport, just with extra layer of tactics (preparation, ambush, whathaveyou) around the conflict itself. And 'commiting acts of violence'? As opposed to what, people putting bullets in each other's heads and blowing them up with grenades in match of Counterstrike?

You seem to enjoy PK, you consider it strategic, and I can't argue with you if you want to commit to that point. But point out that PK, RVR, sandbox games don't even require a balance game to actually function. For example killing lower level players is ok because its up to the lower level player to figure out how to run away or play perfectly in order to beat his much stronger aggressor. It doesn't matter if there is a level/gear treadmill because its just another part of "setting up the situation in your favor".

This can be true, and note that unregulated nature of PvP in sandbox game also allows the players to balance it out on their own -- a group of weaker players can take on few that'd be individually stronger. The opposite is of course also possible; it's part of the open-ended nature of such setup, lack of predictability and thus more focus on flexible tactics... again making the whole thing more akin real warfare rather than sport.

Thus grind helps PK because PK'ers don't want competition, just a kill count.

That's debatable -- if the game has grind it can turn off the players, thus reducing number of participants. Which reduces opportunities to kill which would --by your own logic, which i don't quite agree with btw-- make the game less interesting for players who want 'just the kill count'.

Tell me what is the difference between killing a player vs killing a monster in the world pvp/"win or lose your land" games?

Potential short- and long-term consequences. When you kill an NPC, there is no possibility this NPC is just a part of ambush that may put *you* in disadvantaged situation. There is also no possibility for the killed NPC to show up together with hundred others on doorstep of your HQ two weeks (or months) down the road.

The difference is, NPCs have no intelligence and no politics. Players generally do, and the more they utilize them the more interesting the game becomes.

[wuzzman]

 

I see 4 people saying exactly the same thing; As long as the grind is fun there is no grind. Which I agree is a cute little definition for a PvE game but your going to fall on your face applying that definition to a PvP game, behold WAR and AoC. Especially AoC, where dieing over and over again due to level indifference pretty much made players log off and never come back. Even worse AoC felt it was an exceptional good idea revolve sieges around a ton of grind. Or EvE, where you need to hold an account for several months before even dreaming of being more then target practice and nameless fodder. Was the grind from 1-80 in AoC reasonable? Sure, but that's assuming your playing AoC for pve, if your on a pvp server your just sheep. Was the grind to 1-40 in WAR reasonable? Sure, but that is assuming that you don't mind playing scenarios until your brain leeks out of the corner of your ears. Then you can play PQ's until you start wonder why WAR didn't spend more money developing the pve game. Of course it's ok if the sole reason you play WAR is to noobwhack mobs and not be a serious contender in tier 4 RvR as quickly as possible. Is EvE grind reasonable? Of course it is, until you lose your first non-cheap ship. I can go down the list of mmo's that if they only had a real definition of grind and not the "its ok as long as we hide it really well" that their PvP wouldn't be the laughing stock of gaming.

tmp, all that you mention an npc's can't do, they can. You can easily program NPC invasion armies and gank squads with current technology. Hell you don't even need decent AI. A game revolving around PK puts little difference between players and simple AI.

[tmp]

tmp, all that you mention an npc's can't do, they can. You can easily program NPC invasion armies and gank squads with current technology. Hell you don't even need decent AI. A game revolving around PK puts little difference between players and simple AI.

Easier said than done, and proof is in the pudding -- you show me the game that has NPCs operate on level of player-made politics in EVE and i'll concede the point.

But note, using this very logic the e-sport games are absolutely no different. AI can be "easily" made to play any 'competition' games as good as regular or even the best players. What is a difference between beating Garry Kasparov and Deep Blue?

[Jayce]

It is also difference between sport and war. One of them involves violence yes, but both are competition -- in case of war the competition just focuses on being the last one still standing. And yes, people don't pay to watch wars, but this doesn't make them any less "PvP".

This.  And the rest of tmp's post.

This is why I say (again) that it's so key to note the difference between esports and open PvP.  Chess is a great game, classic even, the most classic.  But it's a sport, because it has no resemblance to real life.  The sides are balanced, the game board is known and the rules rigidly define what you can do in a particular engagement.

Open PVP games are about "simulating", with some greater or lesser degree of realism, an environment to interact, in a friendly way or not, with other heavily armed players, usually in the context of some political system.  The political system can be just agreed upon by the players or actually enforced by game mechanics.

Inside of that context, a particular encounter can be fair or unfair, and the existence of a grind or other advancement mechanism is only important for the effect it has on the experience as a whole.  The important part is the overall effect and the emergent behavior observed and experienced by the players.

TLDR version: open PvP games are about thinking outside the box (much like real life) and esports are about finding more ways to do things or honing the skills to do them inside a given box.

[wuzzman]

tmp, all that you mention an npc's can't do, they can. You can easily program NPC invasion armies and gank squads with current technology. Hell you don't even need decent AI. A game revolving around PK puts little difference between players and simple AI.

Easier said than done, and proof is in the pudding -- you show me the game that has NPCs operate on level of player-made politics in EVE and i'll concede the point.

But note, using this very logic the e-sport games are absolutely no different. AI can be "easily" made to play any 'competition' games as good as regular or even the best players. What is a difference between beating Garry Kasparov and Deep Blue?

Gary is a thinking human with strength you need to avoid and weakness you need to exploit. An AI can easily be designed to automatically noobstomp any player or make obvious mistakes over and over again, would that be fun? no, the value of competing against players because they have weakness you can exploit and strength you need to learn to deal with. And those strength and weakness change. An AI can't simulate that. An AI can simulate the "war" feeling you expect in world pvp games, they can be as retarded as you like or can show up in vast mobs at your cities and towns by simple setting the spawn rate or even the mob path direction to cross from city to city. Tabula Rasa city siege system is completely NPC generated. You don't need players to simulate the "war" feeling and you don't need Deep Blue to accomplish either.

also Eve works because of its annoy death penalty which totally kills the game for 70% of potential players, but works on the virtue that it simulates "causalities", which is essential for a "realistic pvp" as you seem to consider PK. PK without a punishing death penality is simple a zerg. For example claiming a territory in EvE is not a matter of waking up on the other sides off peak hours and commencing the zerg, attempting to play ring around the rosy with stations don't work because player death matters to much.

[Venkman]

I see 4 people saying exactly the same thing; As long as the grind is fun there is no grind. Which I agree is a cute little definition for a PvE game but your going to fall on your face applying that definition to a PvP game, behold WAR and AoC.

Oh, you're talking only about MMOs billed as PvP? Yea, I definitely agree. If you're an MMO and have PvP, unless you're Planetside there's definitely a grind. It's still based on the player's state of mind; however, it is the fault of the developers because if they first make players PvE before PvPing, or compel them to pvE because that's where the best/only rewards come from.

It's about the expectations of the target audience for the game.

[Jayce]

That might be a good point.  There are two reasons for an advancement scheme of any kind:  tradition going back to DIKUMud/D&D, and in order to keep people chasing the next cheese to keep them subscribed.

If you can provide a sandbox for players to be motivated to provide the next cheese to chase, maybe advancement is not necessary.

[TheCastle]

I see 4 people saying exactly the same thing; As long as the grind is fun there is no grind. Which I agree is a cute little definition for a PvE game but your going to fall on your face applying that definition to a PvP game, behold WAR and AoC. Especially AoC, where dieing over and over again due to level indifference pretty much made players log off and never come back.

Well I think in this case you are using AoC as an example to quantify to some degree where the bar for quality needs to be where its ok to question whether or not the idea that PVP itself is flawed, or an entire genre, rather than the game itself.
Even in the case of Warhammer I believe that in its current state the game is going to be significantly different than it is now in the next 3 to 4 months.

Basically what I am saying is that other problems have intervened.
I cant say I would use either of these games as Stirling examples of game design because of a fundamental flaw at the heart of the games core mechanics. No I would be more apt to say that problems with these games have come about for various other reasons, not all of them even necessarily related to PVP.

When it comes to a game being skewed for PVP I do believe that you pigeon hole your game a bit more than you possibly should. There are only so many ways you can fight other players. Where as a game like wow gives you a much larger pallet of options to reset your experience at your leisure while a game like Warhammer makes me feel as though you are missing the point when you PVE after being somewhat burned out on PVP... Then on top of that my feet begin to burn in the sand the second I see how much xp a quest gives and how long I am going to be the same level if a continue at this rate. I immediately seek a better option. Just another example to show that Warhammer is certainly not in its prime right now.

However you are describing grind in a different respect.
When using the word grind I always think of it in terms of Bad design or poor implementation. Not allowing the player to reset his experience regularly enough to keep things fresh is almost off topic in my opinion. I see this as another beast that is unrelated. If you design something well enough its water under the bridge that people will not feel the grind.

And what you are describing is very different.
You seem to be saying that emotionally its not worth while to consider anything below a tier 4 PVP pool as a true grounds for actual PVP.
That the only way to extract meaningful competition is if every fight is 100% fair. Performing repetitive tasks to improve your character prevents every encounter from being 100% fair. And that explains why you say everything is grind. Anything that prevents me from having a fair fight destroys all meaning. Anything that makes it so the more skilled player doesn't always win ruins the competition.

Considering all of the other problems with AOC and Warhammer I am not too sure what you are saying is the one defining problem with those games. Just by paying attention to real life phenomenons where escalation is very much a part of real life sports and war alike. I am more inclined to believe the problem lies elsewhere in these examples.

It is also difference between sport and war. One of them involves violence yes, but both are competition -- in case of war the competition just focuses on being the last one still standing. And yes, people don't pay to watch wars, but this doesn't make them any less "PvP".

This..
Well people do pay to see wars but for different reasons and with a completely different mindset. Saving Private Ryan is a good movie for example.

This is why I say (again) that it's so key to note the difference between esports and open PvP.

You know I never really thought about it this way before. And its true.
In the case of Esports you want the more skilled players to always win. And in this case you need to incorporate ladders and very accurate match making systems to make sure fights are always fair.
You want as few people as possible on each team and a referee to keep things in check.

In the case of a giant battles its more based around doing things for the carnage itself and less about being the better man so to speak. Its not about a skill based encounter but rather brute force and very simple high level tactics. Large scale organization rather than micro managing every detail about every conflict. Your goal is to cut the other guys legs off or kick him in the balls. Winning is the only option so cheap tactics are fair game.

well anyway sorry about the large post.
There are ways to solve all of these problems.
We just haven't seen anyone pull it off yet.
However in the end I still feel that simply marketing your game to be based on Player vs Player you will immediately shrink your potential customers to begin with. I doubt we will ever see 11 million people actively playing a game based on PVP as its core mechanic simply because it is based on PVP and nothing else. But with that said I am willing to bet the threshold for a potential player base is much higher than any current games have achieved right now. There is plenty of potential that has yet to be had imho.

[tmp]

Gary is a thinking human with strength you need to avoid and weakness you need to exploit. (..) the value of competing against players because they have weakness you can exploit and strength you need to learn to deal with. And those strength and weakness change. An AI can't simulate that.

Tell me what is the difference between killing a player vs killing a monster in the world pvp/"win or lose your land" games?

An AI can simulate the "war" feeling you expect in world pvp games, they can be as retarded as you like or can show up in vast mobs at your cities and towns by simple setting the spawn rate or even the mob path direction to cross from city to city.

Except these are just small part of the 'human experience'. You just said it yourself -- the AI cannot emulate human strength and weaknesses. (or can it, because acting 'as retarded as you like' would be quite that?) These strenghts and weaknesses evidence themselves and shape the open pvp encounters just as much as they shape the more rigid e-sport encounters.

PK without a punishing death penality is simple a zerg.

Open-world PvP without death penalty allows people to simply play over and over and over each time they are defeated, with little to no downtime. You know, just like you can play another e-sport match just after you lose one. If this ability to play constantly is "zerging" well, i guess that's all the e-sports are too, then?

I really don't see the point you are trying to make here.

[Venkman]

If you can provide a sandbox for players to be motivated to provide the next cheese to chase, maybe advancement is not necessary.

I don't think you need to nix advancement altogether, just channel it the right way. That's why I keep going back to COD4. They're really close there. Combat itself is not affected by level, as you can use every weapon you can scrounge at level 1. But to get easy access to those weapons and to get better secondary abilities (stat buffs basically), you need to gain XP. And the only ways to gain XP are intrinsically tied to what you're doing anyway (PvP, objectives in certain game modes, Achievements).

But that's "just an FPS game" right?

Not in my mind. Plot all of the maps onto an atlas, allow win conditions that progress to the next map, have recurring server resets as needed, and allow players to travel between maps in the same cohesive group (as an option), and you could start charging $9.99 a month for it. Better than Planetside. I was disappointed when details about COD5 weren't traveling along this vector, but I'd be damned surprised if Actiblizzard wasn't thinking when they get more hands-on with COD6.

[wuzzman]

TheCastle to explain all that is and was wrong with AoC and WAR would require me to miss the Cowboys vs Giants game, which isn't happening ^_^

Tmp, no dealth penalty makes defending or attacking any fix position pointless.

[tmp]

Tmp, no dealth penalty makes defending or attacking any fix position pointless.

I disagree, defending and attacking fixed positions has quite a point when ownership of these positions provides the owner with benefits. Eventual death penalty attached to it is quite optional.

But if you want to go there... there is no death penalty in e-sports. Why do people play them, doesn't it make the whole thing pointless?

Of course not -- they do it to test themselves against another human player, to improve their skills and tactics, and for the act of winning itself. You know, it's really no different in open PvP.

[TheCastle]

If this ability to play constantly is "zerging" well, i guess that's all the e-sports are too, then?

I really don't see the point you are trying to make here.

Well technically a Zerg is when the fight itself does not reset but the people do. If you are able to reset after death with out penalty and your opponent does not you are zerging him.
All it is by definition is mindless rushing of your enemy with out worry about consequences. Its a very good way to burn yourself out on PVP.. Let alone the fact that you would be tossing aside a great deal of depth to be had in the game in general.

So I suppose on this you will not be able to zerg in a e-sport setting because the match comes to an end.
If it is possible to win a E-sport match with out any kind of skill or tactics while simply swinging away mindlessly then there are bigger problems to be solved.
That would be a pretty failed E-sport design I would think.

imho I am on the fence about whether or not zerg tactics are always a bad thing for all situations. However zerg tactics should never be a dominant strategy under any circumstances at all ever.

[tmp]

So I suppose on this you will not be able to zerg in a e-sport setting because the match comes to an end.
If it is possible to win a E-sport match with out any kind of skill or tactics while simply swinging away mindlessly then there are bigger problems to be solved.
That would be a pretty failed E-sport design I would think.

The fun part here is, the term 'zerging' itself comes from the 'zerg rush' that's quite a valid tactic to win the match in Starcraft, i.e. what could be perhaps seen as pinnacle of e-sport at this point

[TheCastle]

So I suppose on this you will not be able to zerg in a e-sport setting because the match comes to an end.
If it is possible to win a E-sport match with out any kind of skill or tactics while simply swinging away mindlessly then there are bigger problems to be solved.
That would be a pretty failed E-sport design I would think.

The fun part here is, the term 'zerging' itself comes from the 'zerg rush' that's quite a valid tactic to win the match in Starcraft, i.e. what could be perhaps seen as pinnacle of e-sport at this point

LOL!
Yeah that's a fucking good point lol!

Though to be fair I believe the meaning of the term zerg in a mmog setting has changed over time. It doesn't mean the same thing it does in Starcraft anymore.
If you were to apply what zerg has come to mean in a mmog setting to Starcraft it would be both sides automatically have unlimited resources and when ever a unit dies it simply respawns at your base waiting to be sent out again free of cost. I believe it is also referred to a Zombie tactics in some mmogs.

[tmp]

Though to be fair I believe the meaning of the term zerg in a mmog setting has changed over time. It doesn't mean the same thing it does in Starcraft anymore.
If you were to apply what zerg has come to mean in a mmog setting to Starcraft it would be both sides automatically have unlimited resources and when ever a unit dies it simply respawns at your base waiting to be sent out again free of cost.

Yup, i think that's pretty accurate (minus the unlimited resources part, the MMOs can have lot of players but the numbers involved in any conflict do have a cap that's the number of players online and interested in this particular conflict, even if the cap itself may vary over time) ... of course, it can be just seen as simply different kind of challenge. When both sides have (mostly fixed) amount of units available and these units respawn when defeated, then it is still possible for a player to destroy/conquer base of the other player, the game just becomes progressively harder the closer you get to the opponent (as their resupply lines shorten while yours get longer)

edit: which when you think of it also isn't different from how some e-sport FPS games are set up -- the players repeatedly respawn on death, and the goal is to capture points of interest in one manner or another.

[TheCastle]

Though to be fair I believe the meaning of the term zerg in a mmog setting has changed over time. It doesn't mean the same thing it does in Starcraft anymore.
If you were to apply what zerg has come to mean in a mmog setting to Starcraft it would be both sides automatically have unlimited resources and when ever a unit dies it simply respawns at your base waiting to be sent out again free of cost.

Yup, i think that's pretty accurate (minus the unlimited resources part, the MMOs can have lot of players but the numbers involved in any conflict do have a cap that's the number of players online and interested in this particular conflict, even if the cap itself may vary over time) ... of course, it can be just seen as simply different kind of challenge. When both sides have (mostly fixed) amount of units available and these units respawn when defeated, then it is still possible for a player to destroy/conquer base of the other player, the game just becomes progressively harder the closer you get to the opponent (as their resupply lines shorten while yours get longer)

edit: which when you think of it also isn't different from how some e-sport FPS games are set up -- the players repeatedly respawn on death, and the goal is to capture points of interest in one manner or another.

I agree with your point on unlimited resources.

In addition to that you bring up a really interesting point about large scale battles and the potential incorporation of a supply line mechanic.
Perhaps one of the most important things missing from Warhammers RVR is the concept of supply lines. We observe this type of phenomenon in real life situations as well.

In its current state right now its very possible to create a hamburger hill scenario where both sides run a stalemate for extended time. This is only a problem because to the player he or she will simply feel that is how the game is meant to be played. Because no other options arise.
Adding a supply line mechanic to Warhammers RVR pools would not only solve the problem where it feels like a constant zerg on the same location. If done right it could potentially force the front lines of battle to be more flexible and cause a feeling of risk vs reward. Losing your supply line would destroy your chances of success. By this I mean your penalty for death would be significantly increased.

Currently, as it stands the RVR pools are a lot more like playing a game of chess where both sides do not have a king and the pieces respawn.
I would very much enjoy seeing a defining lose factor introduced to the RVR lakes Warhammer. A supply line of sorts.

[Jayce]

If you can provide a sandbox for players to be motivated to provide the next cheese to chase, maybe advancement is not necessary.

I don't think you need to nix advancement altogether, just channel it the right way. That's why I keep going back to COD4. They're really close there. Combat itself is not affected by level, as you can use every weapon you can scrounge at level 1. But to get easy access to those weapons and to get better secondary abilities (stat buffs basically), you need to gain XP. And the only ways to gain XP are intrinsically tied to what you're doing anyway (PvP, objectives in certain game modes, Achievements).

But that's "just an FPS game" right?

I never said anything was "just an FPS".  In fact I've often thought that an MMOFPS would be interesting if done right.  I suppose Neocron came close from the descriptions I've read, but I never tried it.

The bottom line is, the interface and paradigm (FPS, RTS, RPG etc) are really just details.  Things like death penalty, travel, and restrictions on when someone can engage another are what separate the esports from the open PvP systems, not the interface.

But if you want to go there... there is no death penalty in e-sports. Why do people play them, doesn't it make the whole thing pointless?

Of course not -- they do it to test themselves against another human player, to improve their skills and tactics, and for the act of winning itself. You know, it's really no different in open PvP.

Death penalties and esports don't mix.  That's why the WOW model as they currently have it works so well.  The point of esports is as you state above.  Someone can play open PVP for the same reasons, but the risk is higher because it's not exactly inline with what the game's point is.  The game's point is to take out the competition by any means necessary, not to have a fair fight.  The interesting part is that the fight IS fair, one level higher (the strategic level).

[Count Nerfedalot]

Waitaminnit, I don''t think anyone has quite pinned down a good definition of "grind" yet.  Playing does not automatically equal grinding, otherwise the term is meaningless.  Grind is a label for a specific type of play which has generally negative connotations.  The key characteristic of grind, and what I think is probably the biggest finger-in-your-eye aspect in regards to MMOGs, is repeating content which has become unfun in order to progress.  That is grinding. 

Now, that whole repeating content thing has all sorts of different meanings and nuances depending on individual circumstances.  Killing 10 wolves may or may not be a grind, but killing 500 almost certainly is.  Doing a given quest, instance, dungeon, raid, or whatever may be fun 5, 10 or 50 times.  But eventually, doing it just one more time is gonna feel like definite grind.  Starting a new character and leveling him to 20 or whatever may not be a grind the first time (unless you are completely burned out on level-based RPGs), but in some games it becomes so after the second or third time, while in others it may take 5 or t0 times to become a grind.

The root cause of grind, at it's simplest, is the failure of the developer to provide sufficient content for the player to achieve his goals without "having" to repeat the same content more than it is fun to do so.  One of the key contributors to WoW's success was that it shipped with very little grind required to level from 1 to max.  Ironically, WoW's end-game grinds are probably the worst grinds presented to players (in the Western Hemisphere anyway) since EQ's faction and gated content (PoS) grinds.  Except for crafting grinds, which seem to be universally tedious and long in every game so far.

WoW took several months for all but the most extreme hardcore no-lifers to level from 1 to max, all while experiencing new content the entire journey, and you could do it again with almost all new content a second time by trying the other side.  AoC (barely) provided enough content to level to max, once, but is suffering for having no end game, a short progression from 1 to max (barely a month), and that progression has very few options or alternatives.  So a great many players played through to max, got bored and quit, promising to come back once the game was finished (meaning once there was something new to do/achieve).  Meanwhile, WAR appears to have shipped without nearly enough content to get you to max level even once, even when that journey only takes a month or two, thus forcing players to repeat the same content over and over again ad nauseum just to get one character to max. This seems to be the major factor contributing to the early player burnout it has experienced. 

The irony is that PvP should be (at least according to most developer's theories) the answer to the problem of repetition becoming boring.  Every new encounter with live opponents is a different experience (unless it's just you die immediately) so the replayability is theoretically infinite.  Yet the two recent AA titles which staked their claim to market share on providing PvP seem to have failed to actually provide fun, replayable, rewarding PvP for their players when the players needed it.  The end-game for AoC and the journey to the end-game for WAR. 

[TheCastle]

Waitaminnit, I don''t think anyone has quite pinned down a good definition of "grind" yet.

Too me I define it like this

I believe that something can only be considered a grind at the moment that repetition becomes apparent to the player in a negative light.
This is usually around the time when the player realizes that he would lose nothing as far as his playing experience to simply be able to skip everything and achieve his next goal now rather than later.

When it comes to allowing people to reset their experience they need plenty of options. One analogy I like to use as a technique to allow the player to not feel grind is to look at how some lizards that live in the desert stand on hot sand.

They stand on 2 legs at a time only and switch feet every few seconds. If they don't switch feet they risk burning their feet on the hot sand. Peoples attention spans work in much the same way. A game like WOW switches its feet by changing the type of quests it gives you or allows you to change what it is you are doing it your leisure. A lot of things come into play here from the locations you visit to the types of things you do. In games like Half life the designers set the pace and properly change out the experiences swapping out your feet for you. In a more open ended game you give that power to the player and allow the player to decide when to reset his experience. In Oblivion you are able to chose what types of things you want to do and when for example.

A game reaches a point when it is no longer a grind when the player is constantly jumping back and forth between unique experiences and never has a chance to become bored or come to the realization that he is simply doing the same thing over and over again. Where the player does not allow his feet to burn in the sand so to speak.
Well its a complicated topic like I said before and I am somewhat oversimplifying and imho it is a bit off topic.

Grind exists in virtually all genres as well. Its most notable and talked about in the MMOG. Not too surprising when considering the nature of the MMOG.
Its one of the biggest hurdles to overcome in game design in general however. How people feel when they play your game is of utmost importance.

[Venkman]

I don't think you need to nix advancement altogether, just channel it the right way. That's why I keep going back to COD4. They're really close there. Combat itself is not affected by level, as you can use every weapon you can scrounge at level 1. But to get easy access to those weapons and to get better secondary abilities (stat buffs basically), you need to gain XP. And the only ways to gain XP are intrinsically tied to what you're doing anyway (PvP, objectives in certain game modes, Achievements).

But that's "just an FPS game" right?

I never said anything was "just an FPS".

Yea, sorry to imply that, I just roped you into my narrative I was using "just an FPS" in quotes to convey the sense of dismissiveness sometimes thrown at games without "MMO" in their categorization. And yet, COD4 provides some interesting solutions to problems some of us have been watching go unsolved for 10+ years. A lot of that seems in large part due to either the same old school developers trying again and again without any appreciable expertise in anything but this medium, or outsides like Blizzard coming in and doing the old school formula right.

I don't want another MMO developer making an MMOwhatever. They've had plenty of time and the same old same old isn't going to cut it unless you play (and lose) by Blizzards rules. I want a developer from a different genre altogether to add MMO to their game.

[Mrbloodworth]

This thread is becoming a grind to read.

[Nebu]

This thread is becoming a grind to read.

The grind becomes worth it in the endgame.

[Venkman]

Come on, that's just a state of mind 

Seriously though, same words five years ago. Next we'll be talking about accountability.