The Importance of Being Overpowered

[pxib]

My best PvP moment was running a level 8 Disciple into the Empire starting area to explore and I accidentally got flagged.

A level 10 Ironbreaker I passed wouldn't let me flee so I turned around and beat him down.  Continuing on a group of three level fives decided to try their hand.  That fight went on a while with two War Priests and the archer class, but I finally killed one after splitting them up by doing some target switching, then the other two backed off.

Really low level fights, but it was a lot of fun.

This, paraphrased, matches most of my favorite PvP experiences. Is there a way to make this fun for the Ironbreaker, Warrior Priests and the Shadow Warrior? Do they have to finally kill the Disciple to make their sacrifices worthwhile? Can this become a game feature?

So much of PvP theory seems to chase a theoretical balanced fight as the pinnacle of fun, when I've found it's a lot more enjoyable win easily or to finally succeed after a long, bloody struggle. The action RPG (Think Diablo or God of War, but most MMORPG PvE counts to an extent) centers on strings of easy wins. A high body count reinforces the player's feeling of power and competency. I proposed a possible way to provide disposable player-controlled thugs in the Random PvP Ideas thread, but it existed outside the current framework.

Is there a way to shoehorn it in?

[Sheepherder]

Monster play.  Asymmetrical abilities doesn't piss players off so much when ostensibly the goal is for it to be different than standard pvp.

[Salamok]

This is the expansion to my upcoming perspective based MMOG where everyone you see looks like they have shit gear compared to yourself.  The expansion involves all players perceiving themselves as kicking the crap out of everything.

[Slyfeind]

One of my favorite PvP experiences was playing a zombie in a scripted (ugh) event in UO. I hated the scripted part, but it was awesome to just run up and go "UHHHHHH" and get killed by a knight on a horse.

Zero sum sucks. Just make shit fun.

[DLRiley]

L4D says hi.

[pxib]

So, to generalize, you're all saying it asymmetry works fine so long as each player goes in understanding the imbalance. Lions ride glorious waves of destruction, and water buffalo enjoy hindering the lions and then occasionally teaming up for a kill. Defeat is a built in expectation for the underpowered, so they're pleasantly surprised when they manage to get a few points... so long as they exist within a game that makes such points an integral part of the gameplay, and makes defeat almost meaningless.

[Nebu]

I think that people would be fine with the imbalances as long as a) there was at least some chance that they could beat the odds, which makes for a great gaming anecdote or b) they are rewarded equally for equal effort.  Gaming seems to be every bit as much about the joy of the experience as it is about the rewards. 

[Viin]

There's nothing more satisfying than outsmarting a bigger, heavier gunned opponent that would crush you in an up front confrontation. In EVE, that means teamwork most of the time.

While playing SWG I was a perma-PVP flagged Imperial BH, and ended up in a lot of fights. The best ones occurred when I was up against folks slightly lower than me, but there were a handful of them working together. I had to use my wits to stay ahead of them, keep them off guard and separate them for individual kills. Sure I lost a lot of those fights eventually (but I took down 1 or 2 with me), but I also won some and gloried in it.

Not sure that helps any, but I believe it's the act of applying knowledge/skill to a situation and coming out on top, not every time, but when you really have your shit together. Inequality gives the underdog a chance to prevail.

Incidentally, EVE's PVP works this way pretty much to a T.

Edit to add:

The problem with games such as WoW is the inequality is too great. A level 20 cannot beat a level 30, it's impossible. Unless the level 30 is AFK I suppose. No amount of outwitting would allow the level 20 to have a fair shot at the level 30. Since I didn't PvP hardly any in WoW, how many level 20s would it take to kill a 30? 5?

And that's only 10 levels difference.

[Sheepherder]

[Needs more info]

Asymmetry only works when the players expect asymmetry.  However there will be the tacit assumption that a game requiring two weeks of grinding to get into the endgame will have near 1:1 parity between all classes, races, specs.  One caveat is that when the player has the option of switching out of a broken class/race/spec they will be less inclined to throw a shitfit unless the switching isn't free, in which case they tend to throw a shitfit about the switch not being free rather than the spec being broken.

Or: monster play, with asymmetrical power and abilities, and varying levels of solo/team play encouraged.  Two examples at opposite end of the spectrum:

Dragon:  You get a huge flying dragon avatar.  Limit of x active per server at once, can only be used x times a day.  Rip the abilities straight from Onyxia.  You get put on the world map as an objective for other players to kill, dragons are hostile to everything and eating other players (or monsters) grants buffs commensurate with the difficulty of the thing killed.

Zombie:  You get a zombie.  Slow movement speed, low attack power.  Attacks have the ability to spread a disease that transforms the victim into a zombie after a time, or after the target is killed, disease is accelerated in speed as more stacks of the debuff are applied.  If the player is killed he controls the next zombie he has converted and so forth.  Has a cannibalize ability that turns corpses lying around (doesn't have to have been killed by a zombie) into more zombies.  Non-zombie players killed/cannibalized are also raised as zombies.  Has an AoE cooldown speed buff for use against kiting classes which can be chained by having multiple player zombies in the vicinity.  Zombies grow in strength as they kill and cannibalize.  Zombies are never unfriendly to each other.

Other options are: Lich, necromancer, outlaws, trolls, orcs, goblins, werewolves, draugr/wendigo, vampire, elemental, demon, gnoll, kobold, gargoyle, etc...

[Lantyssa]

I think it does work better if there is an understood inequality, however it is not a guaranteed loss as mentioned with the WoW level example.  If there is an expectation of being 'equal', then it gets really old if one class can always counter you.

I'm not sure if the Ironbreaker vs. Disciple fight was good for my opponent.  It made me feel great to outlast him, since he was hurting me pretty badly, but I managed to cycling my abilities just right to make it.  Especially since I did try to flee from him but had to turn to fight when he wouldn't give up.

Against the lower levels I think we all had fun.  It was tough.  I doubt they had any expectations of beating me, but then it took me several minutes to down even one.  Sure they backed off when I finally killed one of the priests, but I seemed hesitant to pursue.  They knew I was still wary and I expect it made them feel good to hold the line against a 'superior' foe.  They saved their newbie area from the evil elf, and they did it at levels 4 and 5.

[pxib]

This is why I quoted you at the start... these are great examples.

Especially since I did try to flee from him but had to turn to fight when he wouldn't give up.

That's why I think it might actually have been, if not good for him, at least a battle he learned something from. So long as a loss is a matter of an error I made as a player, I can theoretically improve. If it turns out there's no way an Ironbreaker can beat a Disciple he's going to be upset -- fate is out of his hands -- but in that particular moment he can tell himself he should have let you run.

Asymmetry only works when the players expect asymmetry.  However there will be the tacit assumption that a game requiring two weeks of grinding to get into the endgame will have near 1:1 parity between all classes, races, specs.

Could a game then offer classes with a variety of different levels of endgame? Making cannon fodder might be as easy as selecting a class in TF2, but sturdier fodder might take a few minutes of scripted customization. Actual pvp characters might require between a few hours and a week to "complete", allowing for different power levels within that scheme. Points earned in combat could be spent on better equipped cannon fodder or temporary character buffs. Or whatever.

[Viin]

Kinda like Guild Wars but toned down in PvE requirements?

[pxib]

Sure. One way Guild Wars failed was that it maintained a subscription assumption: Players need a grind to keep them subscribed. When it dropped the subscription, there was no reason to hide the fun behind a PvE wall. Once the monthly fee is dropped, there's no reason to make players do anything they don't want to do.

Reward their effort, of course. That carrot and stick is fundamental. If somebody is playing a lot, give them a way to gain some sort of advantage from it... but if PvP is what they want, there's no reason a player shouldn't be able to get right into PvP within seconds of installing. The idea that everyone should be equal and grind to the fun is separating "PvP battlegrounds" from the multiplayer FPS tradition. I think they could coexist.

[Nebu]

If somebody is playing a lot, give them a way to gain some sort of advantage from it... but if PvP is what they want, there's no reason a player shouldn't be able to get right into PvP within seconds of installing. The idea that everyone should be equal and grind to the fun is separating "PvP battlegrounds" from the multiplayer FPS tradition. I think they could coexist.

Isn't the goal to have players stay subscribed a long time without playing a lot?  I'd think that would be the way to maximize profits. 

[pxib]

<derail>
In that case I'd think a more elaborate version of EVE would be ideal... make all crafting and leveling take a lot of real-world time, but allow them to be performed offline. Allow skills and items to be queued, even. Then institute something like WOW's bonus experience period, but have the advantage ramp exponentially the longer it's been since you last logged in. If there's no experience in the game substitute cash, PvP points, gathered resources, a discount at shops, or whatever. Provide a low bandwidth web or instant messaging interface for guild interactions, skill selection, and market maintenance.

Keep the monthly fees rolling in while the players only log in to conquer and compete once they've skilled up and purchased or constructed the goodies they need to pwn for a few glorious hours. Then they disappear again for a week or two.

In an online game without subscription fees, on the other hand, the best player is one who buys the box but never actually creates an account... then immediately convinces all her friends to do the same. I leave the design of that particular project as an exercise for the reader.

If I were to remake Guild Wars, I'd have all the skills unlocked as soon as anyone starts playing. All the more recent armor stat-customization options available as well. What PvE would unlock is custom armor appearances, armor dyes, custom weapons, esoteric pets, and entertaining battle emotes. Players who had fought their way through PvE would be immediately recognizable in PvP and they'd look snazzy... but everybody could play.
</derail>

[Sheepherder]

Isn't the goal to have players stay subscribed a long time without playing a lot?  I'd think that would be the way to maximize profits.

Bandwidth is cheap, but people buy the game to play it.  If they aren't playing the game, they may feel cheated out of their money's worth.  The ideal is to make the end goal fun, rather than trivialize it, and to also avoid creating a content gate.  Again, monster-play is pretty good for this if it's built in a way that tends to encourage emergent gameplay, like hundreds of zombies shuffling through capital cities.

Regardless, horizontal character growth is the way to go for any pvp game, and pve games could probably benefit as well.  The problems most DIKU types will run into is that they offer 3-4 increases in player power every time the player gains a level (+stats, +talents, new abilities, better gear available).

[DLRiley]

Sure. One way Guild Wars failed was that it maintained a subscription assumption: Players need a grind to keep them subscribed. When it dropped the subscription, there was no reason to hide the fun behind a PvE wall. Once the monthly fee is dropped, there's no reason to make players do anything they don't want to do.

Reward their effort, of course. That carrot and stick is fundamental. If somebody is playing a lot, give them a way to gain some sort of advantage from it... but if PvP is what they want, there's no reason a player shouldn't be able to get right into PvP within seconds of installing. The idea that everyone should be equal and grind to the fun is separating "PvP battlegrounds" from the multiplayer FPS tradition. I think they could coexist.

Guild Wars stopped having a pve requirement after January 2007...

[Bunk]

The problem with asymmetry in PVP is that there is what I expect asymmetry to be and then there is WoW's version of asymmetry. WoW (and similar games) are so worried about the balance of everything, that the power curve is set at crazy slope.

Look at PVE in WoW - a level 30 character can probably solo up to say a 33rd mob. With a group, a few 30s might take down a 35th or 36th level mob, but shortly after that there is an enforced system that basically says - if you are X levels lower than your opponent, you can't damage it. Not you do less damage mid you - you do no damage at all. Same curve applies to PVP. Ten level 10s in WoW would be little more than gnats against a single level 30 character.

Basically they wanted to make sure that it was impossible for a gang of characters to kill something outside the level range they are "supposed" to be fighting. This to me is one of the most disapointing design decisions in current MMOs.

Now everyone will groan when I mention my old friend Asheron's Call, but I really did prefer how they did it. Yes there was a level curve, but it was an actual curve. The higher you got, the lower the power gain you got for each level. This meant, that while a level 30 character was still far more powerful than a level 10, the level 10 could still do damage. Unlike WoW, a level 30 caught in a fight with 10 level 10s would most likely lose misserably.

This, along with the rather free PVP rule set, lead to much more interesting scenarios. Numbers mattered just as much as levels.

Of course this lead to horrific scenarios, like a group of ten level 30s gathering to venture in to the level 60 direlands, engaging in terrifying fights with level 60 monsters, running from unexpected spawns, and generaly crazy combats in which usually only a few members survived, but came out with glorious stories of victory. For some reason, current MMO's have decided that this is a bad thing.

[ShenMolo]

Edit to add:

The problem with games such as WoW is the inequality is too great. A level 20 cannot beat a level 30, it's impossible. Unless the level 30 is AFK I suppose. No amount of outwitting would allow the level 20 to have a fair shot at the level 30. Since I didn't PvP hardly any in WoW, how many level 20s would it take to kill a 30? 5?

And that's only 10 levels difference.

You're mostly right, but what you mention is not impossible. There is a player skill component. I have personally witnessed mid 30's kill mid 50's, and watched on YouTube a (twinked) level 1 beat a level 22. In each case the higher level toon was awful at PvP, while the lower level ones were skilled PvP'ers.

Level 1 v 22

[Famine]

Edit to add:

The problem with games such as WoW is the inequality is too great. A level 20 cannot beat a level 30, it's impossible. Unless the level 30 is AFK I suppose. No amount of outwitting would allow the level 20 to have a fair shot at the level 30. Since I didn't PvP hardly any in WoW, how many level 20s would it take to kill a 30? 5?

And that's only 10 levels difference.

You're mostly right, but what you mention is not impossible. There is a player skill component. I have personally witnessed mid 30's kill mid 50's, and watched on YouTube a (twinked) level 1 beat a level 22. In each case the higher level toon was awful at PvP, while the lower level ones were skilled PvP'ers.

Level 1 v 22

Yepyep, tactical skill and experience still plays a small part in almost all games (some more than others). I think what he was trying to say was the major impact that levels and maybe even items play into combat with different games. Obviously you have a great advantage on your end with such things but in the end, if you can't use them correctly; you fail.

Another point brought up was EVE. There is a minor misconception there too. Ships have roles much like other games have classes in their own roles. Those roles can be followed or ignored. Some developers try to force you to play that role where others give you more freedom. In almost all cases playing those roles correctly will always limit a great advantage against the equal counterpart. Some refer to this as 'paper rock scissor' combat where you bring rock and I bring paper. Yet others refer to this as great balance.

The biggest method I always like to tactical is the focus of balancing game play around grouped PvP rather than solo PvP. Both grouped PvP and solo PvP are very fun. One appeals to guilds or even hardcore players where the other appeals to casual or even another form of hardcore player.

[Kail]

You're mostly right, but what you mention is not impossible. There is a player skill component. I have personally witnessed mid 30's kill mid 50's, and watched on YouTube a (twinked) level 1 beat a level 22. In each case the higher level toon was awful at PvP, while the lower level ones were skilled PvP'ers.

I assume he doesn't mean logically impossible.  I can jump on a level 1 priest and solo kill the best geared 80 in the game, if they have to go AFK for some reason.  But even with odds of a million to one, you'd be an idiot to bet $1,000 on me winning the fight.

The problem I have with asymetry in balance is that it tends to eat itself.  Players chose the powerful class to play, because they want to kick ass.  Who's going to chose the useless class?  The only time you're going to get many people playing it is early on, when nobody's sure which classes are which.  Then, everyone's going to migrate to the tough classes.  That, in itself, isn't the problem... the problem is the whole "when everyone is super, nobody will be!" thing where everyone who rolled Jedi to curb-stomp Stormtroopers finds out that they can't actually do that if nobody's playing as a Stormtrooper.  So the game ends up kind of semi-balanced anyway, since X always equals X, except that you pissed off anyone who didn't want to play X, and you wasted money (presumably) producing a bunch of content almost nobody will see or use.

[pxib]

Which is where things like monster play come in.

Imagine if in DAoC you could teleport directly to the keep your guild is defending out in the frontier, rather than having to run. Ditto if you die and can't get rezzed... you can resurrect right at the keep instead of at some distant spot you've got to run back from. But... there's a five minute period during which you're not playing your character but instead are playing a fast-respawning guard. Low hitpoints, few abilities, but just as capable of interrupting spellcasting and interfering with ram placement, and generally being a nuisance... but rather than reactive like an NPC guard, proactive like a player. Sneaky. Tactical. When the guard dies, another respawns almost immediately back inside the tower and comes running out again. You get to choose an archer, a pikeman, a footman, or a shield bearer. Then a few minutes later your real character shows up to cause some real damage.

There's your stormtroopers.

Heck, let playing stormtroopers gain you "stormtrooper points" which you can spend on individual spawns of slightly more powerful, customized stormtroopers... on a cooldown. As your stormtrooper level increases you can customize the appearance, emotes, and animations of your stormtroopers so players know they're playing against somebody with stormtrooper experience: " Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time."

[Sheepherder]

In each case the higher level toon was awful at PvP, while the lower level ones were skilled PvP'ers.

Level 1 v 22

That isn't really skill.  It's the gear and buffs that do the work, in all probability he has more mitigation through armor and avoidance than the paladin does.  All he has to watch is three buttons.

Heck, let playing stormtroopers gain you "stormtrooper points" which you can spend on individual spawns of slightly more powerful, customized stormtroopers...

Or, in a DIKU type, buy entry-level PvP gear for your character with them.  Sort of a self-correcting system: if you're dying in PvP, you play as a Stormtrooper more often, which gets you gear upgrades so your real character doesn't die so often.

[pxib]

This can also go the other way.. a "hero class" might become available when players complete some PvP quest, like the one for the big elites in Alterac Valley, except instead of summoning an NPC it promotes the player to their hero character. Perhaps this can only happen within particular heroic zones. Death is final (and the quest must be repeated to play again), but until then they level up an "elite" character with entirely different skills and equipment.

Indeed there could be a level above even that,where an entire group of "heroes" could promote one champion... an unstoppable, raid-level boss on a tight timer. Or perhaps once enemy players enter that hypothetical guild-controlled keep, the Keep Lord could become playable. A pre-determined guild member suddenly switches perspectives and has command of some considerable abilities... but is unable to leave the keep.

EDIT: do not post while sleeping

[Fordel]

You're mostly right, but what you mention is not impossible. There is a player skill component. I have personally witnessed mid 30's kill mid 50's, and watched on YouTube a (twinked) level 1 beat a level 22. In each case the higher level toon was awful at PvP, while the lower level ones were skilled PvP'ers.

Level 1 v 22

That wasn't about skill, that was about abusing the buff/enchanting system and how it scales hilariously on low levels. That lvl 1 Rogue has more HP then most level 30's, let alone a 22. He has more Dodge then probably most Raid Tanks and the Crusader Proc probably put his AP on the same level as the 22, while healing the rogue substantially every proc. I don't even think that lvl 1 would be possible any longer, due to changes in WoW's twinking rules.

At one point, before they changed how it worked on low levels, it was possible to get a level 19 rogue with 110% Dodge rate. Literally immune to any melee attack in the frontal arc. 

[Elerion]

There are lots of WC3 custom maps that work on this principle. They are (or were at least) quite popular.

This is the typical structure:

1-2 "Hunters"
Very powerful characters, usually entering play 30-120 seconds after the "Hunted". In WC3, these are heroes with level and item-based progression.

8-12 "Hunted"
Extremely weak characters, often killed in 1-2 hits by the Hunters. In WC3, these are typically builders with building-based progression (Resources and Tier X buildings). They may have the ability to create units aside from buildings, in which case these serve as defense early and role-reversing offense later.

The objective for the Hunters is to kill all the Hunted. The objective for the Hunted is to either kill the Hunters or more commonly, survive until a certain time has passed. The Hunted do one of three things when killed:
- Respawn as a lesser version of the Hunters (typically Vampire/Werewolf themed games)
- Respawn as a Hunted with some penalty (all buildings lost, all cash lost, some respawn time, or "trapped until rescued")
- Permadead

Games typically start with the Hunter destroying some number of Hunteds quickly due to overpowering their early base defenses. Hunteds that are left alone early on improve their base strength until they become very hard to break, or become an offensive force of their own.


The interesting part about these games is that it's often hard to get someone to play the Hunter, despite them being individually overpowered. I guess you can write it down to the experience of surviving "against all odds" is so powerful that people enjoy being the underdog.