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

[TheCastle]

Maybe this is just me but I think that one of the tell tale signs that PVP in MMOGs is lacking in terms of game play is the current trend where 1 vs 1 battles are not always fair or interesting.

How could it be possible that team based game play is running on all of its cylinders if 1 vs 1 is not also just as fun?
Wouldn't that be considered by most to be an important factor when considering an E sport setting?

And for that matter not having interesting 1 vs 1 yet building your game around team or rvr conflict. Isn't that a little bit like building a house with out a foundation?

[Jayce]

It depends.  There is a natural tension between viability of 1v1 matchups and specialization of roles.

In less flowery language, if you want all classes to be fair in 1v1, you can't have healers, or crowd controllers, or tanks or anything.  Everyone has to be some different flavor of the same thing.

Every game falls into a part of the spectrum here, from the typical FPS (everyone is a gun shooter) to the typical fantasy mmog thing that tries to balance PVP and PvE (raiding) in there somehow, to the team-based specialized role game that's either full PVP or full PVE (Eve or Everquest), in which no character type is very soloable.

[tmp]

Maybe this is just me but I think that one of the tell tale signs that PVP in MMOGs is lacking in terms of game play is the current trend where 1 vs 1 battles are not always fair or interesting.

How could it be possible that team based game play is running on all of its cylinders if 1 vs 1 is not also just as fun?

Sniper vs engineer in FPS setting probably ain't very fair nor fun for at least one side, either. This doesn't have to mean much for the team based play though, as teams are combination of abilities of individual players... and as such can have different members take care of both potential weaknesses and strenghts.

[TheCastle]

It depends.  There is a natural tension between viability of 1v1 matchups and specialization of roles.

In less flowery language, if you want all classes to be fair in 1v1, you can't have healers, or crowd controllers, or tanks or anything.  Everyone has to be some different flavor of the same thing.

Every game falls into a part of the spectrum here, from the typical FPS (everyone is a gun shooter) to the typical fantasy mmog thing that tries to balance PVP and PvE (raiding) in there somehow, to the team-based specialized role game that's either full PVP or full PVE (Eve or Everquest), in which no character type is very soloable.

Maybe this is just me but I think that one of the tell tale signs that PVP in MMOGs is lacking in terms of game play is the current trend where 1 vs 1 battles are not always fair or interesting.

How could it be possible that team based game play is running on all of its cylinders if 1 vs 1 is not also just as fun?

Sniper vs engineer in FPS setting probably ain't very fair nor fun for at least one side, either. This doesn't have to mean much for the team based play though, as teams are combination of abilities of individual players... and as such can have different members take care of both potential weaknesses and strenghts.

Both of your points are dead on. Absolutely see what both of you mean.
What I just said was a massive can of worms more so than I was expecting..
For starters my original point appears to go against all conventional wisdom.. Looking at all class based games with PVP you immediately see that 1 vs 1 has the same problems.

Control of real estate plays an often integral roll in 1 vs 1 combat to a surprising degree. Either it be control of the mega health and running loops in quake or even space on the screen as seen in most 2d fighting games. However this is true for team based conflicts as well in general but with one major difference. In 1 vs 1 conflict the number of mistakes your opponent makes is at its lowest possible denominator before it has a true effect on the direction of the match itself. Meaning that 1 vs 1 should potentially be the ideal platform for an E-sport setting.

In less flowery language, if you want all classes to be fair in 1v1, you can't have healers, or crowd controllers, or tanks or anything.  Everyone has to be some different flavor of the same thing.

Its the archetypes that we hold on to so dearly that are holding us back most. The core principles that we have built around western style rpgs for so many years. The very much ingrained concept of the Warrior, rogue, and the wizard that we have still to this day adapted but never removed entirely from the mainstream RPG and now the MMOG.

Where even under the circumstances where a game is putting PVP before PVE logic dictates that it doesn't even make sense anymore to have a traditional tank in a PVP environment what do we see in Warhammer?

Perhaps what I am saying is heresy but...
Its possible, although it would require experimentation, to have new archetypes that relieve the natural tension between specialization and 1 vs 1 match ups. That combined with new rule sets that say your special action point burning abilities are less effective on yourself than on others and special ways for each class to further normalize any kind of rock paper scissors mechanics that might still exist could very well make it possible to build a true PVP setting from the ground up rather than adopting more complex versions of class archetypes from the first Gauntlet or Diablo or Everquest. ( Games that did not necessarily cater to a PVP setting in the first place )

With a stronger foundation in place your larger scale events could then be more structurally sound so to speak.
sorry I keep editing this damn post ><..

[Fippy_Darkpaw]

Why is it no dev house can seem to make a game with that Counterstrike kind of replayability and grab?

Blizzard has. In fact, there are probably more people in WoW BGs/Arenas per night than total players in most MMOS. You may not agree, but:

- most people like consensual PVP
- most people don't like death penalties
- WoW PVP is also fairly skill-based (if it isn't then why aren't you rating 2000+?)

BGs/Arenas satisfy those requirement perfectly. Besides those, I'd say most MMO PVP fails because of:

- bad interfaces
- clunky combat controls

Compared to WoW just about every MMO combat system is clunky as hell. WAR being the latest offender this department.

[Venkman]

Welcome Fippy. But you will not ruin our lands as you have ruined your own! 

[Xurtan]

Grr. Bark. Bark. Grr.

That is all. 

[TheCastle]

- bad interfaces
- clunky combat controls

Compared to WoW just about every MMO combat system is clunky as hell. WAR being the latest offender this department.

Do you have in mind how this could be improved?
Or do you just see this as a fundamental flaw playing games that have complex interactions in a PVP setting with mouse and keyboard vs a controller?

[UnsGub]

The very much ingrained concept of the Warrior, rogue, and the wizard that we have still to this day adapted but never removed entirely from the mainstream RPG and now the MMOG.

That describes all team sports and the military.  Every position played or filled in team sports and military is optimized to a specific body type and talent.  (pitchers, lead off hitter, point guard, center, running back, wide receiver, etc.)  Ultimately everyone is different, no reason to do the impossible and make them the same.

[TheCastle]

The very much ingrained concept of the Warrior, rogue, and the wizard that we have still to this day adapted but never removed entirely from the mainstream RPG and now the MMOG.

That describes all team sports and the military.  Every position played or filled in team sports and military is optimized to a specific body type and talent.  (pitchers, lead off hitter, point guard, center, running back, wide receiver, etc.)  Ultimately everyone is different, no reason to do the impossible and make them the same.

I say a compromise at the least is in order.
As it stands in many cases in war or Open RVR for example.. Its potentially possible to have a football game with 18 linebackers..
With an E-sport setting however your point stands up very very well. (edit: as long as its team based PVP )

But then a problem appears.
With the way I see how MMORPGs work is that they are designed sort of like amusement parks. You pay a monthly fee and you can do mostly what ever you want while you are there provided you meet preset requirements ect.
Well then in an amusement park aimed at a PVP a setting. Would it not be best to then support as many forms of PVP as possible in a cohesive package?

So from E-sports to war conflict.
From the smallest controlled events to the largest battles one can fathom.
Am I making sense? I could be off in lala land I have no problems if you say so.

[wuzzman]

The very much ingrained concept of the Warrior, rogue, and the wizard that we have still to this day adapted but never removed entirely from the mainstream RPG and now the MMOG.

That describes all team sports and the military.  Every position played or filled in team sports and military is optimized to a specific body type and talent.  (pitchers, lead off hitter, point guard, center, running back, wide receiver, etc.)  Ultimately everyone is different, no reason to do the impossible and make them the same.

there is a slight misunderstanding. The archtypes used in mmorpgs are not conductive to player vs player combat. If you played baseball, of course you'll need a pitch, lead off hitter, point guard, ect, because those roles are necessary for winning. However classes are usually designed with PVE or role-playing in mind instead of how they fit objectives in pvp. Tanks don't belong in pvp for example. the whole concept of one is purely pve modeling. In pve you have 3 essential classes, tank - healer - nuker. In any game that is the efficient way to get through pve content. What that mean in pvp is that classes designed for those roles and the add on roleplaying classes (archerrs, rogue, support) are either developed to supplement those roles, translate into muddled garbage as far as pvp is concerned (team based or other wise).

Simple put, a pvp game must be designed with pvp archtypes. You can shoe horn pvp mechanics in a system that is inherently pve, but your not going to get the best results. And ultimately the players who do pvp will call out your bullshit.

TheCastle, you can have both. But ultimately like pve vs pvp, your designing two different games. most developers can't even design one.

[TheCastle]

TheCastle, you can have both. But ultimately like pve vs pvp, your designing two different games. most developers can't even design one.

Yes I suppose you have a point here...
E-sports and War are two very different beasts. However different beasts of the same feather.

For some reason though I feel like the things that balance an E-sport setting are not the same as what makes a balanced war setting. And that in more than a few ways they often compliment each other.

example:
The difficulty of balancing open RVR is much less than balancing 1 vs 1. ( Controlled Team vs team can work either way, full class based, or all the same. So that's a non issue. )
So to focus on 1 vs 1 classes much like you would with street fighter. Then as a secondary priority you give each class a way to share bonuses with team mates or combine power attacks or something that allows people to work together.
In almost all cases PVP is better off with out a Rock paper scissors type of balancing. ( except for controlled Team vs team )

Open RVR is now still fun if 14 Ryus show up. Everything works as intended. 1vs1 is fun no matter what classes show up. team vs team still has plenty of depth. ( Believe me if quake 1 controlled team vs team has depth this would too at the worst )

So in essence make one game but keep in mind that if you start small while not removing your options to think big you can possibly knock out 2 birds with one stone with, at the very most, the negligible loss in quality you observe when looking at a PVE game that has PVP tacked on.

Honestly I think open RVR would work fine with classes balanced for 1 vs 1 that have some ways to heal and buff each other. at 100 vs 100 the chaos has already usually reached a boiling point its not exactly like every little detail is going to matter.

Of course the difference being here is that your theme park has more available cohesive attractions. You can then coin your game as the ultimate one stop shop for everything PVP come one come all...

[UnsGub]

Simple put, a pvp game must be designed with pvp archtypes.

Is it really must?

Did baseball, football, basketball really start out with specific people in those positions or did it get min\max over the decades?  History looks like it was min\max over the decades.

Teams in MMO have the choice to decide what to play so if one archtype was all that was needed to roll then that is what we would see.  Some mods for FPS or RTS limit archtypes and units without removing the PvP but just changing the choices available.  More options and choices are nice but seem far from being reguired.  Was Pong PvP?

[Slayerik]

Subspace is an interesting study:

All the ships had the same basic abilities...they shot bombs and bullets and were able to use mostly the same special abilities.

The Ship types were different in smaller ways:

Warbird: Most Manueverable
Javelin: Highest Top Speed
Terrier: Double Guns
Leviation: Larger Bombs
Spider: Cloak
Lancaster: Bouncing Bombs
Shark: Extra Max Energy
Weasel: Showed bombs on map, EMP Bombs

So basically the ships still had all the same basic recharget rates, max energy, specials, and such but you could pick an area to specialize in. Team Tournaments took this to the next level, trying to find the right mix of these ships. It reminds me a touch more of a skill based than class or archetype game. Everyone has guns. Everyone has bombs. Minor differences in weapons and specials, hell it reminds me of an FPS now that I spell it all out.

Not sure what my point is, besides that e-sports can be good...just fuck Diku e-sports.

[Jayce]

I guess wuzzman has contributed his last to this thread.

wuzzman
Guest

[Rhonstet]

Devs aren't bad: they are just trying to turn a tabletop rpg formula into a competitive PvP formula.  I'm not sure that works.

Archetypes are bad, mmkay.  They are also too much work to balance, and in an MMO you already have your hands full trying to create new content and squashing bugs without having to reinvent the wheel with class balance.  If you've gotta have archetypes, figure out a point-buy system, and set up your archetypes as preconfigured point-buy schemes.

No one really cares about interface configuration unless you're making a hotkey game or you are making an extremely complex sim.  And if you have to make a game where the player needs to have 100+ actions available on short notice, you are either overthinking things to a ridiculous degree, or you aren't making a PvP game.  But still, designing a configurable UI is a good idea anywars, as it means you can do things like make the HUD for different things differently structured; immersion rocks. 

Subspace is an interesting study:

All the ships had the same basic abilities...they shot bombs and bullets and were able to use mostly the same special abilities.

The Ship types were different in smaller ways:

Warbird: Most Manueverable
Javelin: Highest Top Speed
Terrier: Double Guns
Leviation: Larger Bombs
Spider: Cloak
Lancaster: Bouncing Bombs
Shark: Extra Max Energy
Weasel: Showed bombs on map, EMP Bombs

So basically the ships still had all the same basic recharget rates, max energy, specials, and such but you could pick an area to specialize in. Team Tournaments took this to the next level, trying to find the right mix of these ships. It reminds me a touch more of a skill based than class or archetype game. Everyone has guns. Everyone has bombs. Minor differences in weapons and specials, hell it reminds me of an FPS now that I spell it all out.

It's form of ship advancement was also fast: losing all your abilities on a respawn is painless if you can get them back rapidly in seconds, or if the server randomly gives you new gear on the respawn.

Planetside followed a similar concept.  They longer you played your character, the more XP you got.  The more XP you had, the more levels you got.  Each level offered you a new Cert point.  You started with 4(has this changed, its been so long...) Cert Points at level 1.

You could spend your cert points on Certifications.  A certification lets you do anything more basic then handling a pistol, stab with a knife, or wear a uniform.  For example, learning to use an Assault Rifle cost 2 Cert points.  Wearing heavy body armor cost three cert points.  Drive a tank, fly a fighter jet, use medical or repair gear, all costs points.  More advanced skills had prerequisite Certifications.  Learning how to work an anti-tank missile launcher required learning how to operate an assault rifle, and cost 3 more Cert Points.  You can turn in all your points periodically and retrain.

Regardless of how many cert points you had, that assault rifle never became intrinsically more or less deadly.  Certain devices could improve situational awareness or run faster or help you recover faster from wounds, or maybe provide a thin sliver of health when a bomb goes off too close, but dead is dead.

In that kind of environment, you can rapidly rise to the top of your damage potential, but after that point it is more about versatility.  The guy who's played for 200 hours might know how to fly a jet, drive a tank and plant high-explosives, but he can get killed by someone playing 10 minutes who only uses assault rifles. 


The gear itself that everyone uses is free.   Whenever you spawn, you walk up to the handy equipment terminal.  These terminals let you pick the gear you want to use for this spawn, and provide access to anything you are Certed to use.  Gear can also be saved as 'Loadouts' or 'Favorites': someone can set up preselected gear sets so they can switch from a tank driver to a heavy infantryman, as long as they are certed for the gear they want to use.  So, gear is free.  The actual value comes during a heated firefight when you're running low on ammo and the nearest resupply is your dead buddy/enemy.    A similar terminal exists for vehicles, but its not quite as handy.

This system of character advancement worked really, really well for an FPS MMO.  Balance issues only popped up between gear that was realm-specific, where people would argue the virtues of wire-guided missiles versus homing missiles versus shoulder-braced laser cannons, or the advantages of vehicles with one gunner versus two, and so on. 

[TheCastle]

Simple put, a pvp game must be designed with pvp archtypes.

Is it really must?

Did baseball, football, basketball really start out with specific people in those positions or did it get min\max over the decades?  History looks like it was min\max over the decades.

Teams in MMO have the choice to decide what to play so if one archtype was all that was needed to roll then that is what we would see.  Some mods for FPS or RTS limit archtypes and units without removing the PvP but just changing the choices available.  More options and choices are nice but seem far from being reguired.  Was Pong PvP?

Well
Its not just the archetypes we are having a problem with in this case. ( Aside from obvious flawed concepts like a main healer or a tank in a pvp setting... )
Its the concept that one class is innately weaker vs another class.

This works well with units in a RTS setting.
However it causes friction in a pure PVP environment setting where you are locked into your role.

Imagine Pong where you have a choice between 3 different paddles.
Rock paper scissors determines your effectiveness vs your opponent.
Imagine further being stuck with that paddle until you rolled another toon.

Having archetypes is not really a problem. Its the mentality applied to them on creation.
If I can pick my load out before I spawn in in COD4 I am in a sense changing my class.
Imagine being stuck with one loadout in cod4 until you rolled another toon.

I don't believe having people be forced to gear or respec a skill tree before every match is much the answer either. Unless its basically as simple as buying weapons in counter strike or picking 1 of 4 pre made load outs.

Rock paper scissors is also not always a terrible thing.
However I believe it should never apply on a class vs class basis.
It should however play a roll in environmental or situational strategy.

example:
Sniper rifle works well for long range combat.
If your enemies are submerged in water an energy weapon will cause additional damage.
If your enemy is using special armor he is vulnerable to flame throwers and melee take downs while defensive stance mode is active.
( Unless he uses an attachment that gives him extra protection but limits him from using energy weapons )

However
If I pick this class and you picked that class you are simply fucked... Yeah.. Cmon we can do better than that.

[tmp]

That describes all team sports and the military.  Every position played or filled in team sports and military is optimized to a specific body type and talent.  (pitchers, lead off hitter, point guard, center, running back, wide receiver, etc.)  Ultimately everyone is different, no reason to do the impossible and make them the same.

Not necessarily true -- consider volleyball where the players rotate positions on the court each time they gain a serve, which requires everyone to be pretty much jack of all trades in addition to (optional) individual strong points.

In games, there's obviously the earlier FPS games which didn't bother with 'classes' and allowed everyone to perform any role determined by equipment at hand. Locking players in specific roles there is relatively new development. While yes, everyone is different, using these differences to lock people into specific role without ability to perform something else 'because it's not part of your class' is a concept from Gattaca and SF in general rather than our reality.

[Jayce]

While yes, everyone is different, using these differences to lock people into specific role without ability to perform something else 'because it's not part of your class' is a concept from Gattaca and SF in general rather than our reality.

Huh?  I hope you're just talking about esports (where it's not really true either) but in real life I would rather an infantryman not try to crew a tank, fly an A-10, or attempt surgery in a MASH unit.  They theoretically CAN do it but the results will not be pretty. 

In a team-based game, better not to even try to code the loss of efficiency.  If it's not team-based, well, sure, that's another thing entirely.

[TheCastle]

While yes, everyone is different, using these differences to lock people into specific role without ability to perform something else 'because it's not part of your class' is a concept from Gattaca and SF in general rather than our reality.

Huh?  I hope you're just talking about esports (where it's not really true either) but in real life I would rather an infantryman not try to crew a tank, fly an A-10, or attempt surgery in a MASH unit.  They theoretically CAN do it but the results will not be pretty. 

In a team-based game, better not to even try to code the loss of efficiency.  If it's not team-based, well, sure, that's another thing entirely.

two things..
1. It really depends on the scope of the game. Sometimes in the name of fun you have to give up on the reality part a bit. In Battlefield, for example, anyone can fly a plane even a medic. The question is more about when it is appropriate and fun to lock people into their role and when is it not that is most important.

2. Keep in mind that on this particular point about making new archetypes or how things should be set up its hard to really debate further with out going into actual game play details at this point. On a higher level looking down I see that you can very possibly strike a balance where you make classes that do have innate specializations but not go too far in either direction. The point is being that as it stands now the better solution I would say is to strike a balance somewhere between quake 3 and world of warcraft.

Every class has some cool things it can do for a team environment however personal skill is the largest factor on winning a fight either it be 1 vs 1 or larger and not some arbitrary mechanics that feel rigid in a PVP setting.

removed this part after thinking about it. It doesn't make very much sense.
However fun it would be to speculate further I am not entirely sure putting the burden of proof on my shoulders on this topic would necessarily be the best direction for the topic...

would it?

[tmp]

Huh?  I hope you're just talking about esports (where it's not really true either) but in real life I would rather an infantryman not try to crew a tank, fly an A-10, or attempt surgery in a MASH unit.  They theoretically CAN do it but the results will not be pretty.

Why, is there some sort of natural blockade put onto one's brain that prevents them from acquiring both the ability to fly an A-10 *and* to operate a rifle? Or once you know how to fly a plane, you can no longer learn how to drive a tank in real life? Note, the context was that classes mechanics is something derived from real life military and sports. Which is imo inaccurate because while there is some specialization in these fields, it goes nowhere near min-maxing and limited skill trees of these games.

[Fippy_Darkpaw]

- bad interfaces
- clunky combat controls

Compared to WoW just about every MMO combat system is clunky as hell. WAR being the latest offender this department.

Do you have in mind how this could be improved?
Or do you just see this as a fundamental flaw playing games that have complex interactions in a PVP setting with mouse and keyboard vs a controller?

It is a common engineering problem in MMOs. Nothing to do with Mouse/KB vs. Controller. The best games have:

- fluid controls and movement
- near instant response
- satisfying user feedback when performing actions (combination of sound, motion, visual effect)
- in the very very best games, the individual actions themselves are "fun"

For example, when I hit the "Mortal Strike" button in WoW, I hear a satisfying "thunk", I see big numbers pop up, I see a cool animation, and all that happens fluidly and instantly. Similarly, consider a headshot in Counter Strike.

In contrast, in WAR when I hit the "Divine Assault" key on my War Priest, there is a delay, it sometimes fires even when the target is out of range, the animation and sound is often badly synced, it seems to fire a random number times when it is supposed to be three. Unlike WoW, in WAR combat actions do not provide satisfying user feedback.

[Jayce]

Huh?  I hope you're just talking about esports (where it's not really true either) but in real life I would rather an infantryman not try to crew a tank, fly an A-10, or attempt surgery in a MASH unit.  They theoretically CAN do it but the results will not be pretty.

Why, is there some sort of natural blockade put onto one's brain that prevents them from acquiring both the ability to fly an A-10 *and* to operate a rifle? Or once you know how to fly a plane, you can no longer learn how to drive a tank in real life? Note, the context was that classes mechanics is something derived from real life military and sports. Which is imo inaccurate because while there is some specialization in these fields, it goes nowhere near min-maxing and limited skill trees of these games.

Obviously not.  But in real life, how many A-10 pilots do you know that slum it as infantrymen when business is slow?

The point I was refuting was that specialization doesn't reflect real life.  In fact it takes a career to become a veteran A-10 pilot.  If in a game it takes a level grind to become the best healer possible, that's not far off.  Obviously too much verismilitude can be bad for fun, hence the limited skill trees.

[tmp]

Obviously not.  But in real life, how many A-10 pilots do you know that slum it as infantrymen when business is slow?

I don't know any A-10 pilots to begin with but, obvious absurd aspects of the question aside, pretty much an A-10 pilot could handle themselves in pretty competent manner if shot down, wouldn't they? If i'm not mistaken all soldiers undergo basic training, one that --with quick google search-- seems to be currently extended and focused on providing generic war-fighting skills rather than specialization from the get-go ( http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/airforcejoin/a/afbmt1.htm )

Obviously too much verismilitude can be bad for fun, hence the limited skill trees.

Oddly enough though, this is probably one of few cases where borrowing more from reality would actually improve things. Locking people in narrow specializations doesn't appear to improve things as far as fun is concerned, to the contrary if at all. So if it's done for sake of fun, then the end results render this attempt as fail, in my eyes.

To word it differently and hopefully better... specialization as currently implemented in class-based MMOs doesn't imo reflect real life, precisely because it puts more restrictions on the player, and sends them on the min-maxing path that's also more severe than anything currently existing in our reality. THe only 'place' i could think of with similar approach (person's profession determined at birth and then consequent training on that path through whole life, both physical and mental) ... was science fiction where such ideas were explored, hence my original point.

[TheCastle]

The core problem with the idea that someone who can fly a A-10 as being a specialized class is that in real life there is nothing necessarily specialized about it.

As with many things in real life the more you understand the basic principles about anything, and the more you know about the topic at hand, the more easily you can grasp something new. Chances are if you can fly an A-10 you can also pick up driving a tank more easily than a guy who has yet to do either.

In fact the more you know about everything the more easily you will be able to grasp anything new. A master of kung fu is probably going to be far more effective in a beginners level fencing match than someone who is not.

[Fordel]

In any kind of 'world' PvP game, 1v1 balance MUST be a priority. I'd wager a little under half of all of my PvP encounters in that type of game revolved around me running into some other random dude and having to duke it out.


A Punter generally doesn't have to go 1v1 with a Linebacker, but the same can not be said for the warrior and the healer.

[Ratman_tf]

Huh?  I hope you're just talking about esports (where it's not really true either) but in real life I would rather an infantryman not try to crew a tank, fly an A-10, or attempt surgery in a MASH unit.  They theoretically CAN do it but the results will not be pretty.

Why, is there some sort of natural blockade put onto one's brain that prevents them from acquiring both the ability to fly an A-10 *and* to operate a rifle? Or once you know how to fly a plane, you can no longer learn how to drive a tank in real life? Note, the context was that classes mechanics is something derived from real life military and sports. Which is imo inaccurate because while there is some specialization in these fields, it goes nowhere near min-maxing and limited skill trees of these games.

Heh. My favorite extreme example is how some classes can't use certain weapons. As in, they can't even equip them. What keeps Buregard the sorcerer from trying to swing a sword? (Magic! har har.)

[Venkman]

Balance. If you could equip it you'd expect to use it.

It's stupid, but there it is. And nobody seems to mind. Gamers and their boxes and whatnot.

[Ratman_tf]

Balance. If you could equip it you'd expect to use it.

It's stupid, but there it is. And nobody seems to mind. Gamers and their boxes and whatnot.

So do you think mages in WoW would be rolling for tank plate if they could wear it?

[Venkman]

Yes. Because there's a lots of stupid people out there.

It wouldn't be right, but that's more because the entirety of the WoW/diku system doesn't allow for it. There's no reason for a Mage to roll for tank gear. The stats are all wrong.

However, a system actually designed for it would be more like UO. GM Mages could wear plate. It didn't do much more than screw up their mana-regen rate, but it was helpful if you didn't know how to play a Mage template ;-)

But this is why I said "gamers and their boxes". People like clearly defined role, goals, and rewards. Too much choice is confusing and annoying to many.

[TheCastle]

Yes. Because there's a lots of stupid people out there.

It wouldn't be right, but that's more because the entirety of the WoW/diku system doesn't allow for it. There's no reason for a Mage to roll for tank gear. The stats are all wrong.

However, a system actually designed for it would be more like UO. GM Mages could wear plate. It didn't do much more than screw up their mana-regen rate, but it was helpful if you didn't know how to play a Mage template ;-)

But this is why I said "gamers and their boxes". People like clearly defined role, goals, and rewards. Too much choice is confusing and annoying to many.

In a PVP setting I would certainly consider a class that can take a lot damage and can help others on his team either by direct healing or increased action point generation over a cloth using main healer anyway.

example
Sentinel:
Heavy armor + shield
Gives up some DPS but can take a lot of damage
Think Zangief from street fighter but has some Aura abilities similar to paladin in Diablo 2.

Action point regeneration is potent because all classes have somewhat similar ways to heal themselves. Having a sentinel in your group allows people to heal themselves more often.

See what I did there?
Everyone can heal themselves to some degree and the "main healer" is someone who simply allows them more options to do so by themselves. Sentinal has high damage moves that take more skill to pull off exactly like Zangief in street fighter so 1 vs 1 is still very interesting. He is a priority in team game environment because of what he does but if the other people in his group are not skilled players they will still drop fast if they dont heal themselves.

You eliminate the problem where people are getting mad at the main healer for not healing as well in this case...
This is just an example of a class archetype for a PVP setting.

[eldaec]

Balance. If you could equip it you'd expect to use it.

It's stupid, but there it is. And nobody seems to mind. Gamers and their boxes and whatnot.

So do you think mages in WoW would be rolling for tank plate if they could wear it?

There are plenty of mages in WoW rolling for tank plate already.

[Ratman_tf]

There are plenty of mages in WoW rolling for tank plate already.

I'd say that's a user issue and not a game design issue.

[Ratman_tf]

Yes. Because there's a lots of stupid people out there.

It wouldn't be right, but that's more because the entirety of the WoW/diku system doesn't allow for it. There's no reason for a Mage to roll for tank gear. The stats are all wrong.

However, a system actually designed for it would be more like UO. GM Mages could wear plate. It didn't do much more than screw up their mana-regen rate, but it was helpful if you didn't know how to play a Mage template ;-)

But this is why I said "gamers and their boxes". People like clearly defined role, goals, and rewards. Too much choice is confusing and annoying to many.

Well, yeah. But for example, I'm currently playing a healy paladin. I can use +heal equipment of any type for my healset. Whereas a priest can only use +heal cloth. The game is designed that way, but who decided that priests can't wear heavier armor in the first place? And why can't they balance around that?

[Jimbo]

Just to bring up a note, "All USMC are trained as a rifleman."  Even the Harrier and Hornet jockeys, the cooks, the truck drivers, and all, can and will grab a rifle and put lead on target. 

RTS, TBS, Sports, Sims, & FPS all let you start out equal, and figure out threw playing the game against others to get better.  For some reason, RPG's based on player vs player (in some fashion) want you to grind to a level in something that really doesn't help you with player vs player conflict.  DAoC, Shadowbane, and now Warhammer, seem to think that players shouldn't be fighting each other till they have unlocked a level by waisting time beating on "bots."  Ask any FPS if they want to play on a serve with "bots" and most would say no.  The "bots, mobs, or AI" just do not compair with real life players trying to kill or help you.

I still think the grind is what keeps most of us out.  I remember way back when DAoC was comming out, I was playing Tribes (FPS) and the talk on the server was how DAoC looked like it might be a fun combat based RPG.  Within a month we were all back on the server bitching about how it was EQ reskinned, and "no way am I going to bash bots for that long, just so I can go fight in the frontier."  If DAoC, Shadowbane, or Warhammer, had started you out like a FPS and made you max level, but with perks to earn, would that have sucked?  I mean Call of Duty, Battlefield series, etc... all basically let the brand spanking 'n00b' be able to aim and kill someone who has been playing forever, and with the rank comes privilages that makes it more fun to blow the other side up.