MMO drastic changes...for the ruin?

[WayAbvPar]

Let's review the lessons of WoW:

Levels in PVP suck.
Balance in PVP is extremely important.
Population imbalance is deadly to PVP.
Most people prefer to have a choice in whether they get ganked or not.
Casual, solo play helps build subscriptions, but time-sinking catass-enriching achievement schemes lead to disgrunted players.

So which of these lessons are WoW-specific?

I don't think any are WoW-specific. WoW is just the 800-pound gorilla that brings these issues into stark relief. It is a fun game until these issues get in the way.

[HaemishM]

Let's review the lessons of WoW:

Levels in PVP suck.
Balance in PVP is extremely important.
Population imbalance is deadly to PVP.
Most people prefer to have a choice in whether they get ganked or not.
Casual, solo play helps build subscriptions, but time-sinking catass-enriching achievement schemes lead to disgrunted players.

So which of these lessons are WoW-specific?

All of them. And for fun, since we're talking about the MMOG industry, we'll look back at this list on this day in 2006 and change "WoW-specific" to whatever the next game is that completely ignored the lessons of past MMOG's in the rush to release.

[chinslim]

Let's review the lessons of WoW:

Levels in PVP suck.
Balance in PVP is extremely important.
Population imbalance is deadly to PVP.
Most people prefer to have a choice in whether they get ganked or not.
Casual, solo play helps build subscriptions, but time-sinking catass-enriching achievement schemes lead to disgrunted players.

So which of these lessons are WoW-specific?

One of the things I find unappealing about the current WoW PvP system is the disjoint of the instanced battlegrounds with the virtual world.  Maybe the Blizzard designers could have implemented some sort of worldwide Horde vs Alliance thing, but since they knew there were serious A/H population imbalance issues, could that have forced them to go for the instanced route?

[Pococurante]

It will be less grinding in the long term because once they have what they want, they will relax.  When they can see the light at the end of the tunnel, yes, they will grind even harder to get there, but once they've gotten it, they're done.

Or they'll just quit for the next new shiny.  I think devs are crazed to chase the adrenalin-driven as their primary content customer.  Especially for something like WoW.

[Nija]

I forgot how big of a pussy Joe Sixpack is. Thanks for reminding me, thread!

[WindupAtheist]

I forgot how big of a pussy Joe Sixpack is. Thanks for reminding me, thread!

lol catass lol

PS:   

[Nija]

I forgot how big of a pussy Joe Sixpack is. Thanks for reminding me, thread!

lol catass lol

PS:   

Not even. Like the guy who was going to quit because he couldn't walk down the fucking road near Southshore without getting ganked. Yet didn't know he could go up and around Alteraac or whatever. HARDCORE RETARDS. #1 reason why all these mmo games currently out suck, and the games for the next 4-6 years will suck.

[Koyasha]

I haven't played WoW in a while (not since before battlegrounds and the honor system), but the problem I'm hearing clearly stems from the simple fact that killing other players is now directly rewarded.  I initially started on a non-PvP server with some friends, but when I got to around level 25, and spent a day in Stonetalon, watching horde players and occasionally being watched by them, but never actually being able to *attack* them if I felt they were intruding on what I had deemed as my territory, I quit and went to a PvP server.  I had quite a bit of fun there, and although there was occasional ganking and such, it was pretty easy to move to a different area when those who I had no chance of EVER defeating showed up and started killing me.  And I had great moments like being able to defeat an entire enemy group that attacked me once.  However, in neutral territory, I tended to leave the Horde players alone and in turn be left alone by them.  In areas I deemed to be 'ours' (as a Night Elf, Ashenvale and Felwood were primary among these), I'd go out of my way to kill any Horde in the area.

In areas like Stranglethorn Vale, Desolace, Tanaris, etc, I'd leave them alone, and more often than not, I'd get left alone in return.  There were the occasional unprovoked attacks, and blood feuds (Hey, there's soandso, I owe him one!), there was definitely the feeling of 'hostility without open WAR' that the story claims.  It was working pretty well.  Rewards for killing others has made the mutual wariness policy nonexistent, it sounds like.  Worst part is that the major complaint about the PvP servers that I *did* have - the guards in supposedly 'neutral' towns like Gadgetzan and Booty Bay being 100% ineffective at stopping conflict within the 'neutral' towns - is still there, according to what I've heard.  Hey, take a lesson from EQ, morons, if you can't make guards smart enough to path to roofs/water, make them warp, or "You will not evade me, roof_ganker_0653!"

Basically, putting in rewards for PvP is good for non-PvP servers, and bad for PvP servers.  On non-PvP servers it encourages people to not be cowardly and put up their PvP flags more often.  On the other hand, on PvP servers, all it does is encourage a 'kill anything that moves' policy.  Not that I'd really want a dishonor system either. Not about punishment for ganking, just don't fucking encourage it any more than simply ALLOWING it.  Most of the people I knew who played there were fine with allowing unrestricted PvP.  Occasional ganking wasn't that big an issue to us.  But having the honor system encouraging killing anything that moves....now that's a problem.

As for the original topic, I think there is a good point there.  Whenever a game massively changes significant fundamental features, at the very least, a huge portion of the population that actually enjoyed the old game leaves.  Whether a new (possibly bigger) portion of population that now enjoys this new game arrives or not is questionable.  If UO had kept the early days of penalty-free PvP or even the Dread Lord/red name days, I would have played it much longer, and so would a lot of people.  However, a lot of other people probably would not have.  They may have gotten the better part of the deal with what they did, and they may not.  The best deal would be if there are going to be massive changes like that, separate one or more servers (however many the demand for them requires) to NOT have those changes.  You keep both groups.  As long as the population that wants the old rules is sufficient to sustain one server, you probably end up ahead on profits.

[Pococurante]

It's a tradeoff I am willing to take.  Products need to evolve.  Of course some changes are probably dumb (New Coke, Phase One comes to mind).

Blizz always intended an honorable kills system.  The problem is that the dishonorable system is non-effective.

[Kail]

Basically, putting in rewards for PvP is good for non-PvP servers, and bad for PvP servers.  On non-PvP servers it encourages people to not be cowardly and put up their PvP flags more often.  On the other hand, on PvP servers, all it does is encourage a 'kill anything that moves' policy.  Not that I'd really want a dishonor system either. Not about punishment for ganking, just don't fucking encourage it any more than simply ALLOWING it.  Most of the people I knew who played there were fine with allowing unrestricted PvP.  Occasional ganking wasn't that big an issue to us.  But having the honor system encouraging killing anything that moves....now that's a problem.

I'm not sure I agree with this.  People choose PvP or PvE servers because they (presumably) like PvP or PvE.  Why would you want to encourage people on a PvE server to "not be cowardly and put up their PvP flags more often"?  If they wanted PvP, they should play on a PvP server; that seems to be the point of separating them like that.  Instead, what you get (according to what I heard, which is second hand, so probably exaggerated) is a system where you're rewarding a behavior that is severely restricted, so the PvPers have to goad the PvEers into combat.  Unable to attack directly, they try to fry the quest givers, the bat riders, the merchants, et cetera, until the PvE player is so pissed off that he's going to go PvP just to get those bastards back.  So, you've turned a marginally peaceful PvE server into a roiling sea of PvP malice and bitterness, which is not what the customer signed up for.

On a PvP server, on the other hand, I don't know that giving rewards for PvP is itself the problem.  There was a lot of fighting going on before the honor system, and there's a lot more of it going on afterwards.  If you like the PvP, I don't see how this is a problem.  I'm not sure how the 'hostility without open WAR' that you're idealizing is somehow better, mechanically, than the more aggressive combat post honor system.  So back in the day, sometimes people would bow to each other and go on their separate ways without fighting, but now they always attack each other.  So?  How does this bowing crap make the game more fun?  I don't get it.

Which isn't to say that I disagree that there are problems with the honor system.  I just don't know that these are them.

[chinslim]

On a PvP server, on the other hand, I don't know that giving rewards for PvP is itself the problem.  There was a lot of fighting going on before the honor system, and there's a lot more of it going on afterwards.  If you like the PvP, I don't see how this is a problem.  I'm not sure how the 'hostility without open WAR' that you're idealizing is somehow better, mechanically, than the more aggressive combat post honor system.  So back in the day, sometimes people would bow to each other and go on their separate ways without fighting, but now they always attack each other.  So?  How does this bowing crap make the game more fun?  I don't get it.

Which isn't to say that I disagree that there are problems with the honor system.  I just don't know that these are them.

Because open, all-out, rewarded, "hot" hostilities turn players into remorseless and robotic killing and ganking machines.  I can play an FPS for that experience.  You don't run around as a "casual" group anymore: you're forced to become a search and destroy gank group to survive.

PvP on the pre-Honor PvP servers was much more exciting IMO because you never knew how encounters would turn out.   Furthermore, your actions and decisions could have repercussions on the next hour or 2 of your gaming(very similar to UO in the early years).  Bowing to each other is an example of one possible outcome that you and a potential opponent came to.  You're both thinking the same thing and that  should put a smile on anyone's face, like being able to comprehend a few words from a foreigner.

[WindupAtheist]

I'm not sure I agree with this.  People choose PvP or PvE servers because they (presumably) like PvP or PvE.  Why would you want to encourage people on a PvE server to "not be cowardly and put up their PvP flags more often"?  If they wanted PvP, they should play on a PvP server; that seems to be the point of separating them like that.

Because PvP makes your penis bigger, and it's the sacred duty of every PvPer to make you goddamn carebears quit being such pussies.  Or something.

[Xanthippe]

On a PvP server, on the other hand, I don't know that giving rewards for PvP is itself the problem.  There was a lot of fighting going on before the honor system, and there's a lot more of it going on afterwards.  If you like the PvP, I don't see how this is a problem.  I'm not sure how the 'hostility without open WAR' that you're idealizing is somehow better, mechanically, than the more aggressive combat post honor system.  So back in the day, sometimes people would bow to each other and go on their separate ways without fighting, but now they always attack each other.  So?  How does this bowing crap make the game more fun?  I don't get it.

Try levelling up a new toon on a pvp server to see how bad it is.  I don't know what it's like for people who are already 60, since I got to 48 on pvp after quitting a pve server at 53 for many of the same reasons as the guy above.

I don't recall much bowing or waving prior to the honor patch, just more ignoring - particularly between 60s and those under.  Far less ganking.  Before the patch, it occurred.  After the patch, the 60's camped the 50's levelling spots, the 50's camped the 40's spots, the 40's camped the 30's levelling spots...

See how that goes?

Call me a carebear, but I prefer pvp that's actually, you know, fun.  Sure, you don't lose equipment or points or anything at all, just time.  But I prefer not to spend my time that way.

[Kail]

There was a lot of fighting going on before the honor system, and there's a lot more of it going on afterwards.  If you like the PvP, I don't see how this is a problem. 

Try levelling up a new toon on a pvp server to see how bad it is.  I don't know what it's like for people who are already 60, since I got to 48 on pvp after quitting a pve server at 53 for many of the same reasons as the guy above.

See, that's a complaint I can understand.  I think it's different from the one Koyasha was making, but yeah, that is a problem I can see with the honor system.  Getting your ass kicked all the time because someone else has a higher number than you is not fun.  The day I am elected CEO of Blizzard, this will be the second thing I try to fix.

What I don't get is the idea that getting ganked some of the time (e.g. pre-honor PvP servers) is better than both never getting ganked (e.g. PvE servers) or always getting ganked (e.g. post-honor PvP servers).  Did that make sense?  Sounded better in my head... Anyway, assuming for a mintue we could curb the lowbie ganking, why would that uncertainty of "Am I going to be attacked or not" be better than being certainly safe or certainly in danger?  If you enjoy the PvP, I'd think you'd like the game with more PvP fights, wheras if you don't enjoy the PvP, I'd think you'd like it best with none (like, on a PvE server).  I'm just curious about what kinds of features people see present or lacking in games that have, say, ten PvP battles per hour, rather than fifty (or whatever).

Edit:  To try to clarify this mess a bit:  Ganking lowbies is, I think, something that probably ought to be looked at regardless of how much PvP is going on, because it isn't fun to have happen at all.  Yeah, it's more frustrating to be ganked by a high level fifty times per hour than one, but even if you were only getting ganked once per hour, it would still (in my opinion) be a good idea to try to cut down on it, because it's still causing some frustration (though relatively slight).  However, the argument I'm hearing from a lot of PvP players implies that there's something here that's making the PvP frustrating, but only after a certain point.  I'm wondering what that something is; I don't think it's just ganking lowbies, because that doesn't fit the profile.  It's frustrating at any point, it just gets worse the more frequent it gets.  If that was the big problem, we'd see a huge emigration to the PvE servers, where the lowbie ganking is basically nil, but we're not seeing that, so I'm guessing it's something else.   Am I making any sense?  This is frustrating to write...

[MrHat]

Stuff..

I think I know where you're going with that.  And I have a short answer for you: People like the uncertainty presented by the situation of someone who could beat you walking by.  That uncertainty adds excitement.  Also, there is a proper social interaction that occurs (like the kind that hundreds on this board argue for during the instance vs. uninstances debate).

Edit: Reread what I posted and it makes less sense than Kail.  Ah well, back to my hookah.

[Alkiera]

There was a lot of fighting going on before the honor system, and there's a lot more of it going on afterwards.  If you like the PvP, I don't see how this is a problem.

Try levelling up a new toon on a pvp server to see how bad it is.  I don't know what it's like for people who are already 60, since I got to 48 on pvp after quitting a pve server at 53 for many of the same reasons as the guy above.

See, that's a complaint I can understand.  I think it's different from the one Koyasha was making, but yeah, that is a problem I can see with the honor system.  Getting your ass kicked all the time because someone else has a higher number than you is not fun.  The day I am elected CEO of Blizzard, this will be the second thing I try to fix.

What I don't get is the idea that getting ganked some of the time (e.g. pre-honor PvP servers) is better than both never getting ganked (e.g. PvE servers) or always getting ganked (e.g. post-honor PvP servers).  Did that make sense?  Sounded better in my head... Anyway, assuming for a mintue we could curb the lowbie ganking, why would that uncertainty of "Am I going to be attacked or not" be better than being certainly safe or certainly in danger?

MrHat's post just above this is exactly right.  It's the uncertainty.  This is why games with dice or cards are fun at all.  If everyone at a casino was assigned a number between 1 and 60 when they walked in, and no matter how good your hand was, someone with a larger number than you beat you, there would be no point to playing poker.

This is why so many people find PvE combat so boring, because it lacks uncertainty.  They know that there are approximately 3 NPC enemy behaviors in every MMO, and EVERY mob will use one of them.  In most games now, there's a big sign(or the equivilent) over every mob's head telling you EXACTLY which of the 3 it will use.  There is very little uncertainty in it.  You are nearly guaranteed a win, or guaranteed failure.  There is very little between those states.

PvP is more exciting, therefore, because you have no idea whether that Night Elf that runs by is looking for horde to kill, or just trying to get back to a quest NPC, or looking for his groupmates, or running a ring of harvesting nodes, or what.  Because while PvP could happen, there wasn't an obvious incentive to engage in it, and so they sometimes decided they were too busy doing something else to bother killing the passing orc.  Other times, they had nothing better to do, and would engage in combat.  Now that there is an obvious incentive to PvP, killing the passing orc player looks more worth the time to stop and do.

Basically, it's better because it makes you stop and think.  With PvE servers, you know that unless you /pvp or attack something, that Night elf can't touch you.  No need to worry about it.  With PvP servers with the Honor system, you know that that higher than you Night Elf is GOING to attack you, 99% of the time, because hey, you are free Honor points.  Pre-Honor, the odds were much closer to 50:50 than 100:1, I'd guess.

Admittedly, I haven't played WoW since beta, but that's my understanding of the situation.

Alkiera

[HRose]

PvP on the pre-Honor PvP servers was much more exciting IMO because you never knew how encounters would turn out.

Bingo.

It's since January that I repeat this.

Honestly. Tell me something about this implementation of the PvP that you'd salvage. There's NOTHING. It's all crap. The Honor system is one of the most broken, unfun and stupid system ever created and the evidence that the Battlegrounds are a disaster is in the fact that they are down in most of the servers.

There isn't a single point where Blizzard hasn't failed about the PvP. And this was already obvious as they started to reveal more and more details. But this isn't again an unavoidable destiny. This game has a huge potential to deliver one of the best PvP experience ever. I loved how the PvP servers behaved before Blizzard started to wreck them. They only had to move from that point instead of ruining everything.

There's absolutely nothing to save beside the actual gameplay. The action itself. But everything related to the systems, rules, rewards, means etc.. It's all completely messed.

I haven't played WoW in a while (not since before battlegrounds and the honor system), but the problem I'm hearing clearly stems from the simple fact that killing other players is now directly rewarded.

In fact that's the very first mistake but the resons why this was an error are different from those you explain:
The rule that they completely inverted is the following:
- It's OUT of the BG that you CAN reward for goals and CANNOT reward for direct kills. (persistent environment)
- It's IN the BG that you CANNOT reward for goals but CAN reward for direct kills. (instanced environment)

And there are a bunch of reasons I explain in the link that brought to those points, like the fact that the BG is directly "consensual" and so making the "diminished returns" just retared since the players are there to fight and kill each other, while outside rewarding for a kill in an environment where the PvP is just an aspect becomes an OOC system that transforms everyone in a bag of points you HAVE to collect. So favoring the free ganking and all the other forms of griefing that became so popular.

Think about it and you'll see how's the PvP on a PvP server can really be just about griefing.

These are the design changes I suggested back then:
- REMOVE the "diminished returns" on Contribution points inside the BGs.
- Boost up the goal-based rewards to a level that farming consensually CPs points outside won't offer a benefit.
- Save the persistence of a BG, preventing it to reset even if there are no players inside. (Alterac)
- Add dynamic structures to slowly realign/reset the BG (like temporarily boosting the defenses of the losing faction till they are able to recapture their headquarter).
- REMOVE the points for direct kills outside the BGs.
- ADD goal-based PvP systems to the world outside the BGs like conquerable graveyards, towers, escort/assault missions etc..

[AOFanboi]

MrHat's post just above this is exactly right.  It's the uncertainty.

But if the leveling areas are camped by people ten levels above you it's no uncertainty in PvP anymore either: You will at some point get 0wned by some PvP rank whores. And you in turn will take out your frustrations on someone ten levels below you. It's not PvP, it's schoolyard bullying you pay per month to "enjoy".

the RP-PvP servers might be able to fix that somewhat though.

(Oh, and can we please get back to using "gank" for "gang kill" - i.e. overwhelming someone with numbers - and using "grief kill" or something for when someone kill someone who doesn't standa a chance because of the level difference?)

[HRose]

But if the leveling areas are camped by people ten levels above you it's no uncertainty in PvP anymore either: You will at some point get 0wned by some PvP rank whores. And you in turn will take out your frustrations on someone ten levels below you.

But you miss directly the point. The core of the question is about the reward. It's the reward that codifies the behaviour and dictates how the player should react.

Before the Honor system there weren't "leveling areas camped by peope ten levels above you", or better, there was plenty of ganking but it was the PLAYER to choose to be an ass and grief you. From that point you could react and make your choice but that player wasn't rewarded for that.

This means that the behaviour wasn't codified within a system. You could CHOOSE if to attack someone else or not. There was no gain and no loss, just the meta-level of the roleplay. Even if you didn't care about the roleplay. So there was a possibility of a choice because the system was freeform. It had the *players* as the focus of the gameplay and it wasn't "yet another advancement path" to grind.

In the current system if you think you can win a fight, you are going to attack. Because it's about "bag of points". Before it was just a possibility within that precise context and this helped to build a tension. The PvP in WoW has always been at worst just a minor loss of time. It cannot go worst than that. But it still opens a whole new stack of possibilities that just do not happen in a PvE server. The best moments in the game I had have been about PvP sistuations always "new" that happened to me. Not planned ahead.

The PvP was a way to add to this game the "world" component that it misses, where are the players the focus and not just the infinite advancement path. It was a toy with some depth and an infinite stack of possibilities.

Now it's all gone because the choice of the players has been replaced by an advancement system that strictly dictates how you should behave and that favors the cheap ganking.

[MrHat]

What he said.

[HaemishM]

The problem isn't uncertainty. It's the CERTAINTY that if you get attacked by the level 60 when you are level 40 and trying to level, you WILL be killed. It's a complete certainty. Whereas before there was an incentive to attack, the 60 may or may not attack. Now, since he has an incentive to attack, he will attack more times than he won't, and you are certain to be killed.

[Alkiera]

The problem isn't uncertainty. It's the CERTAINTY that if you get attacked by the level 60 when you are level 40 and trying to level, you WILL be killed. It's a complete certainty. Whereas before there was an incentive to attack, the 60 may or may not attack. Now, since he has an incentive to attack, he will attack more times than he won't, and you are certain to be killed.

I think that's pretty much what we said.  Uncertainty, or in other words, the lack of certain death, is what made the pre-Honor situation better than the post-Honor system.

Alkiera

[Paelos]

Explain to me the incentive for a 60 attacking a 40? That's not an honorable kill.

[HaemishM]

E-peenage?

[HRose]

Explain to me the incentive for a 60 attacking a 40? That's not an honorable kill.

In fact it isn't in THAT situation that the game changed. It's in the situation of five same levels going around to gank random players they find.

Try to go into BRD without getting MC into the lava, it's impossible. On my server BRD is perma camped and each raid/instance run is a nightmare.

The point is that when you think you "can" win (because you are five levels above, because you have uber equip or because your group is bigger) you are going to attack, if you think you'll lose, you flee.

The behaviour of 99% of the players is codified in that two-ways formula. Before the Honor sysyem (that is already horrible on its own) the situation was way more rich and fun to play.

[chinslim]

Explain to me the incentive for a 60 attacking a 40? That's not an honorable kill.

Mainly, it's because you're so busy ganking everything else, you don't bother paying attention to level.  (a side-effect of the Honor System completely altering encounter behavior) That, or you had a bad day getting ganked, and you want to take it out on someone.

[Glazius]

Explain to me the incentive for a 60 attacking a 40? That's not an honorable kill.

If you kill enough 40s, some of them are going to get their mains, which _are_ honorable kills.

--GF

[Pococurante]

Aren't there Dishonorable points for killing "gray" players?  There certainly is for NPCs.

[HaemishM]

No, that was removed from the Honor System because a bunch of pussy hardcore l33t whiners were afraid of "lowbie grief."

[Pococurante]

A shame.  I always did enjoy a good "Bob Swarm" back in the ye olde UO days.  Throwaways ftw - zerg keke!