Rush to World

[Rhonstet]

During an episode of WoW, I remember myself and two friends were jumped by someone who was roughly our combined levels.    We managed to win that battle, but we lost later when that person decided to come back with a friend (and didn't fight like a moron).

Losing that battle wasn't bad: the real problem was that, at our level, we had a limited number of places to go, and in those places we had a limit of area we could adventure in.

That's one of the problems both with PVP and with worlds that support it: the worlds are not large enough to support their populations.  When your world has more gankers then hunting grounds, a problem is brewing.  Furthermore, I submit to my esteemed colleagues that Payback is, indeed, a bitch: when my Mage hit level 60 I promptly flamestrike'd a 25ish town into paste with a few buddies.  The problem builds.

A lot of virtual worlds are like that.  Sure the world may _feel_ big when you step back, but either due to the physics of how the world works or just because of a shortage of real land mass, the world is actually so small that even 'wilderness' is no more then an idle trip.

Which highlights a problem: we can't be certain that a virtual world could or could not work, because all we can do is make different sandboxes with different (and if we are lucky, more) features.  Virtual worlds depend on a lot of things that games have yet to even try to approximate.  The best we can do is to keep making approximations of a world that are _centered_ around a game, and let the technology and industry grow from its occasional successes.

[koboshi]

You make the mistake of thinking most people believe MMOG's are a vs. game. That was the problem I mentioned in the article. The developers (and many/most) of the players did NOT think of UO as a competitive game environment. Their desire was not to have a competitive environment; this desire of course clashed violently with the desire of the people who DID want a competitive environment. Thus you had conflict that was detrimental to the community of the game, and eventually Trammel was the solution. A shitty, shitty solution, but it has informed the decisions of all MMOG developers since.

 so what you really want is warning labels on MMOGs?
Warning! This package contains gameplay elements which may allow for another player character to kill your player character(a.k.a. PK) or your characters virtual property(a.k.a. PK ur Flax). Product may cause players to smell and/or to smell of used litter boxes. Product may also encourage the use of "poop socks" a dangerous and illegal septic replacement system. Players with erections that last longer than four hours should seek immediate psychological assistance. This game should not be played by anyone under the age of 18 without having first finished all their homework. Not for sale in NC CA or South Korea

[Merusk]

 

  That's the same argument as the /smite argument. If the devs ARE farming you out to PKers by, say limiting your ability to strike back, then yes, you vote with your dollars and quit the game. But suggesting that open PVP = Unrestricted PVP is just wrong. Players should be held just as responsible for their murderous tendencies as they are rewarded for their heroic. If you give gold for good deeds take it from them for bad, or something like that. I’m not against regulation just against tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

Of course it's the same argument. I was clarifying a statement, not presenting a new position.  You're also reading too much into my statement.  It was directed at the inevitable argument for full, unrestricted PVP that is going to happen.  It always happens in these threads.  It wasn't directed at you as much as it was at the folks who will come in and say any restrictions are lame and make a game too carebear.

I didn't say throw out open pvp, I didn't say PVP is bad.  I asked a question of given parameters in the hopes that maybe a switch would go off in some people's heads.  An "ooooh, yeah that would suck" moment so that something more productive than the usual "OMG you carebear full suppot for PK roolz!" "Dude, what the fuck are you an idiot?" could happen.  You almost had that moment but then threw it away and instead asked if it's realy a problem with virtual worlds.

Yes, it is.  In a 'world' that attracts multiple player types you're going to have players that want no combat skills and want no part of the combat system.  The world will be just as frustrating and just as restrictive to them and they'll be as defenseless as you are to the abusive GM's /smite command.  You can't have a world without these folks, you can have a segment of one, but not a full world.  Perhaps that's enough but it doesn't seem to be what you all are arguing for.

Now, if you want to discuss open pvp, how do you make the penalty as severe as the rewards are sweet? There's a discussion. I think an open world would be a wonderful thing, but don't think anyone's going to pull it off, because of many many issues, so I'd rather just see games that develop the dispartate systems until everything's got a good system you can then integrate as a whole.

For the Record, I enjoy pvp, hell I even enjoy level-based pvp for the most part.  I'm no carebear, but I certainly understand the position of, "Look this is my hobby, it's how I relax I just want to be left alone to do my thing and putter with my virtual trinkets."  It's the folks who think that this is somehow an invalid playstyle and the folks who want to just be left alone are inferior that I don't understand.  Why is it so necessary that you be allowed to poke them in the eye when they can't even defend themselves.

[Sky]

Yes, it’s consenting to play a game with PVP, whether the scope of that game is a duel between two participants, joining a war, or entering an open PVP online game. Seriously, do you go to orgies and get mad when someone tries to fuck you?

You're certainly twisting well-known scenarios now, aren't you? I'd be mad if I were the caterer to the orgy just trying to do my job and some guy pushed his penis into my anus. Non combatants need to have room to do their job, or they'll disappear.

That's why I didn't complain about open pvp (in fact I enjoy it), it's the fact that in UO most resources were in the wild and vulnerable to pkers, and realistically it didn't pan out to have armed guards for crafters all the time.

That's my point, and my only point in this thread.

[HaemishM]

You make the mistake of thinking most people believe MMOG's are a vs. game. That was the problem I mentioned in the article. The developers (and many/most) of the players did NOT think of UO as a competitive game environment. Their desire was not to have a competitive environment; this desire of course clashed violently with the desire of the people who DID want a competitive environment. Thus you had conflict that was detrimental to the community of the game, and eventually Trammel was the solution. A shitty, shitty solution, but it has informed the decisions of all MMOG developers since.

 so what you really want is warning labels on MMOGs?
Warning! This package contains gameplay elements which may allow for another player character to kill your player character(a.k.a. PK) or your characters virtual property(a.k.a. PK ur Flax). Product may cause players to smell and/or to smell of used litter boxes. Product may also encourage the use of "poop socks" a dangerous and illegal septic replacement system. Players with erections that last longer than four hours should seek immediate psychological assistance. This game should not be played by anyone under the age of 18 without having first finished all their homework. Not for sale in NC CA or South Korea

Personally, I'd rather instead of just being on the box, it be in the manual, it be flashed on the screen during installation, and it be flashed up there along with the EULA (except in big, readable letters) the first time you login. Managing expectations is how you keep a harmonious community, even if it's one based on conflict like an open PVP world is. WoW almost gets it right in this regard, it lets you consent to be PVPed (by either joining a PVP server, turning on your flag, or killing an NPC marked as PVP) AND it lets you know when you are vulnerable to PVP, either by area or by action. That's one of the reasons it succeeds, and one of the reasons there are about as many PVP servers as there are PVE servers.

I'd also like that disclaimer to come with an animation of the ganker anal-raping the ganked, just to illustrate the point home, but then I'm just dreaming at that point.

[koboshi]

Yes, it’s consenting to play a game with PVP, whether the scope of that game is a duel between two participants, joining a war, or entering an open PVP online game. Seriously, do you go to orgies and get mad when someone tries to fuck you?

You're certainly twisting well-known scenarios now, aren't you? I'd be mad if I were the caterer to the orgy just trying to do my job and some guy pushed his penis into my anus. Non combatants need to have room to do their job, or they'll disappear.

  ...and my point is that there is no such thing as a non-combatant. Crafters chose who they craft for, and they know who ever they work for is likely to have enemies.

Blue-Collar Man: Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt, but what were you talking about?
Randal: The ending of Return of the Jedi.
Dante: My friend is trying to convince me that any contractors working on the uncompleted Death Star were innocent victims when the space station was destroyed by the rebels.
Blue-Collar Man: Well, I'm a contractor myself. I'm a roofer... (digs into pocket and produces business card) Dunn and Reddy Home Improvements. And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.
Randal: Like when?
Blue-Collar Man: Three months ago I was offered a job up in the hills. A beautiful house with tons of property. It was a simple reshingling job, but I was told that if it was finished within a day, my price would be doubled. Then I realized whose house it was.
Dante: Whose house was it?
Blue-Collar Man: Dominick Bambino's.
Randal: "Babyface" Bambino? The gangster?
Blue-Collar Man: The same. The money was right, but the risk was too big. I knew who he was, and based on that, I passed the job on to a friend of mine.
Dante: Based on personal politics.
Blue-Collar Man: Right. And that week, the Foresci family put a hit on Babyface's house. My friend was shot and killed. He wasn't even finished shingling.
Randal: No way!
Blue-Collar Man: (paying for coffee) I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. (pauses to reflect) You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens to this... (taps his heart) not his wallet.

  On the other hand if, as Haemish has proposed, the problem is that people don't know that that is what they are accepting, then yes, I do believe that that should be made clearer.

[Merusk]

So you're not advocating putting all types of players in one world. You're looking for a segment of a world, not a full virtual reality. Just so we're clear, on that.  Because if you are this whole conversation has just entered theoretical bullshit world and I'm done with it.  Players have choices in this day and age. UO will never, ever be recreated. That combination of timing, circumsance,  knowledge and naievity will not be recreated.  Players who don't want at least some PvP will not go to a world where their choice is, 'just accept that you're going to be gankbait.'  In that world you're not going to get the guy who just crafts and wants to be left alone on his virtual farmland.  Thus, you have only the combatants, same as every PvP-only game right now.

[Sky]

...and my point is that there is no such thing as a non-combatant. Crafters chose who they craft for, and they know who ever they work for is likely to have enemies.

Yeah, like there's that level of roleplaying going on with pks (not pvpers). If there were, there wouldn't be the problems. You really think a pk says "Lo...that cad doth sell armament to mine enemy! I must smite him verily!"?? Try "Hey I can steamroll that miner easy...." *thwap*

One would make the world a bit deeper and richer, in fact. The other is just a zit on the ass of the game. Unfortunately it only takes a few of the latter playing obsessively to almost completely ruin an online space with open pvp. Period. That's, you know, the lesson of UO and whatnot.

[Raph]

On the PVP discussion, I just HAVE HAVE HAVE to point out that WoW's NON-PvP servers are in fact basically every other game's PvP servers, complete with UO/SWG style criminal/TEF flags. Their PvP servers are like having only the frontiers of DAoC--and they seem to be more popular than the non-PvP servers. It turned out that PvP itself being such a barrier was a myth, that flagging being too complicated was a myth... as usual, the real issues tend to be subtler.

[Margalis]

This thread is one big lump of vague, theoretical bullshit. Most people don't like to talk nuts and bolts because doing so is more likely to betray a lack of knowledge or thought. Blah blah PK blah blah PvP blah blah consensual...yes yes we know!

Every time I come into these discussions I try to prod them along by introducing obvious (to me) notions that everyone ignores so they can keep repeating the same arguments over and over and over and over again...

But once again I will try.

You will NEVER, EVER have a fruitful discussion of PvP vs PvE vs PK vs whatever until you first recognize that "open PvP" and "consensual PvP" are being used to describe a number of difference concepts that are at odds.

PvP MUST be broken up into at LEAST two categories:
PvP as a free-form, wild-west adventure. Survival of the fittest. Run around and kill stuff.
PvP as a "fair" test of skill and competitive endeavor.

"Open PvP" and "consensual PvP" are meaningless terms. If you play on a PvP server you are consenting to the rules. When people say consensual PvP they usually mean toggle-able. And that is just a rule you can have or not have in wild-west PvP.

The difference between wild-west PvP and competitive PvP is immense. They appeal to different people. You can't have a meaningful discussion until you recognize that difference.

Wild-west PvP is the sort of anything goes attitude. It's a dog eat dog world. In this world sneaking up on people after they just battled someone else is good strategy. People who enjoy this style of PvP are typically interested in the world dynamic, the unpredictability, etc. It's a bunch of ants in an ant farm.

Competitive PvP (for lack of a better term) is totally different. In this world sneaking up behind someone after they engaged in a battle is cheap shotting. These types of players don't care if the PvP is realistic or like a world. They don't care if they can attack someone to retaliate for being attacked - they just don't want to be cheap shotted in the first place. If they are PKd PKing the person back is not a solution. These types of players are likely to prefer things like battlegrounds with more structured rules, even numbers of participants, etc.

Wild-west PvP is really about world, and competitive PvP is really about game. Yes people just talk about PvP as one large umbrella. That makes NO sense. On the surface yes they look the same because you are bashing other players. But it's really only a surface similarity.

THAT is why polls like "how important is PvP to you" are stupid. Which type? That is why people complained bitterly when the honor system in WoW was gutted.

If you start talking about PvP without talking about what type of PvP you mean you aren't saying anything. That's why you see these same stupid arguments over and over. "You killed me after I fought a bear and sat down to eat." "Yeah that's PvP!" It is, and it isn't. The type matters.


To Raph: Yes, WoW PvP servers are popular, and yes they are like UO to some extent. However there are some important differences. Despite my rant above, there are grades of wild-west PvP and competitive PvP. In WoW you can't attack guys in your own alliance and in certain places you won't see many or any of the other side. There aren't too many situations where you walk outside your "house" thinking you are perfectly safe and BAM you are dead wtf? (And on top of that all your shit is stolen)

If you made a simple change and allowed alliance members to attack each other at any time you would see the popularity of PvP servers decline *dramatically.* In a game with truly open PvP there is no safe place and no allies. Anything can happen at any time. In WoW you at least know that certain areas are safe and that your buddies can't turn around and kill you. (Yes, they can try to train enemies on you or abandon you but they can't just turn around and maul you to death instantly)

The problem with a wild-west style PvP without *any* rules is that people can and will make it their sole purpose to kill others in a way that makes the game not fun for them. That's what griefing is - getting your jollies out of making the game not fun for others. In a MMORPG allowing abuse is the same as inviting in the front door - it WILL happen.

The WoW alliance system is a built-in anti-griefing measure. If you are getting killed over and over you can grab some alliance buddies (who can't attack you and can't speak to the enemies in game) or you can just go to some alliance controlled areas. And again, yes your alliance buddies could actually be conspiring with the Horde over IRC to grief you some more, but in that case just find some new buddies.

The individual rules do matter. A lot. Most grandiose theories are of little use in games. Good implementation and good details beat good theories the vast majority of the time. That's why I get annoyed by stuff like these discussions and the MAISE stuff. It's so abstract - this helps me create something good how exactly?

If someone really wants to examine PvP, what they should really do is look at every MMORPG that has come out, note the major features of the PvP in each, note the reaction to those features then come up with some analysis based on that. Gather facts and analyze them. That's a pretty standard operating procedure in most fields but in most game theory talk the reverse is true - come up with a theory then hunt around for examples to backfill as justification.

Most good discoveries come after some meticulous observation. If nothing else building up a large set of observations gives you a context to have a discussion in. It's referencable and concrete.

As an engineer I can tell you that if you don't write things down and just rely on spoken examples you will end up with people going in circles forever. You need a set of common observations to have a useful discussion.

[Sky]

Most people don't like to talk nuts and bolts because doing so is more likely to betray a lack of knowledge or thought.

As an engineer I can tell you

Oh. I get you now.

[El Gallo]

On the PVP discussion, I just HAVE HAVE HAVE to point out that WoW's NON-PvP servers are in fact basically every other game's PvP servers, complete with UO/SWG style criminal/TEF flags. Their PvP servers are like having only the frontiers of DAoC--and they seem to be more popular than the non-PvP servers. It turned out that PvP itself being such a barrier was a myth, that flagging being too complicated was a myth... as usual, the real issues tend to be subtler.

I don't think the issues are subtle at all.  People like PvP without consequences: PvP that's just a game.  That's what WoW gives them: PvP when they want, where they want and how they want.  PvP with some rewards, but not essential ones (even battleground rewards almost always have equivalents that can be gotten more easily by just PvEing).  PvP with no losses at all.  PvP that doesn't restrict anyone's access to content.  Players don't want "meaningful" PvP, which is what old-school MMOG designers were trying to shove down their throats for years.  I can't think of anyone who thought PvP flags were "too complicated."

There is no way you can compare that to "every other game's PvP server."  Everquest PvP servers required PvP to access any worthwhile content and the entire endgame.  Same with Asheron's Call.  Same with pre-Trammel UO (and even post-Trammel UO to an extent because Trammel was absurdly overcrowded--"stand in line to get some content or go to the PvP not-a-mirror-lol-area and not stand in line" = forced PvP.  Same with SWG (all the "Star Wars" content required flagging, and PvP ranks were the only non-trivial character advancement mechanism in the game when it was released).

WoW has none of that bull.  It's much more like an EQ PvE Server than an EQ PvE server, except the arenas are fancier and a couple PvP catasses on each side get some fancy loot.  Even the WoW PvP servers are much less "red" than EQs PvP servers because almost all the worthwhile content is instanced and private.

[Merusk]

On the PVP discussion, I just HAVE HAVE HAVE to point out that WoW's NON-PvP servers are in fact basically every other game's PvP servers, complete with UO/SWG style criminal/TEF flags. Their PvP servers are like having only the frontiers of DAoC--and they seem to be more popular than the non-PvP servers.

Raph, this statement makes me think you've either never played on WoW's non-pvp servers, or have never played on any other game's PvP servers.   The PvE servers in WOW are the same as any other PvE server, except they inclue non-permanent flagging for PvP, and the battlegrounds. [[competitive pvp in Margalis' venacular]] The PvP servers in WoW you are perma-flagged in contested or enemy zones and flagged only if you attack or choose to flag yourself in your home zones.   Much more DAOC than traditional PVP (flagged anywhere, and any time anyone opposite faction can kill you even at level 1), but lacking the 'safe' home zones to level-up in after level 20 or so. [[wild-west with 'safe zones' pvp]]

As for the 'complexities' of flagging etc.  It was only the radicals on both sides ("no pvp at al", or only 'wild west' "this is Star WARS after all!!") who said the outcast system or any other variant shouldn't be included. 

 WOW is the closest we've gotten to a successful PVP game in a long while.  Yeah, I'll be pilloried for calling it a PVP game, but the mix of servers are closer to what folks have wanted than anything else to date.  I don't think any game needs to incorporate the two playstyles on one server at all.

[Venkman]

In a game, sportsmanship applies. You don't take a shit on the field or tackle the QB after the ball is thrown.

In a game, the participants agree to Rules of Play, only needing judges/oversight for those occasions where they forget.

However, I find that, for the most part, there are no Rules of Play, in an MMO (I link because it's old, and long). There is only the Rules, the basic game system that defines what you can do and what you can't do. Everything else is left to a person's interpretation, be them the player or the occasional watchdog.

This is why "immature and disruptive behavior" persists. And yesl, I know this is where you'll say "this is why I don't play" :) However, it's important to understand that it persists with each new generation of titles because it adds texture to the social fabric.

I'd no more want to see them gone than I would want to eradic the world of cockroaches. Homogenizing a social environment dooms it to irrelevance and complacency.

[HaemishM]

PvP MUST be broken up into at LEAST two categories:
PvP as a free-form, wild-west adventure. Survival of the fittest. Run around and kill stuff.
PvP as a "fair" test of skill and competitive endeavor.

"Open PvP" and "consensual PvP" are meaningless terms. If you play on a PvP server you are consenting to the rules. When people say consensual PvP they usually mean toggle-able. And that is just a rule you can have or not have in wild-west PvP.

Yes, good observation.

The difference between wild-west PvP and competitive PvP is immense. They appeal to different people. You can't have a meaningful discussion until you recognize that difference.

The difference is a healthy game and an unhealthy one, or better yet a profitable and a not profitable one. Guess which one is which.

The individual rules do matter. A lot. Most grandiose theories are of little use in games. Good implementation and good details beat good theories the vast majority of the time. That's why I get annoyed by stuff like these discussions and the MAISE stuff. It's so abstract - this helps me create something good how exactly?

These kinds of discussions, as well as the MAISE stuff helps you decide who your primary and secondary audiences are. That drives not only the marketing of the game later in the development cycle, but also the entire structure of your game design. If you are trying to design a game to appeal to people who hate PVP and only want to bash monsters co-operatively, then you put PVP in the game, you aren't designing to your audience. These things help determine your audience, and if that isn't driving your "for-profit" game, you will only have a profitable product by sheer accident. Determining the motivations of the type of players determines the decisions you want your engineers and programmers to make when it comes down to where the cows chew the grass.

If someone really wants to examine PvP, what they should really do is look at every MMORPG that has come out, note the major features of the PvP in each, note the reaction to those features then come up with some analysis based on that. Gather facts and analyze them. That's a pretty standard operating procedure in most fields but in most game theory talk the reverse is true - come up with a theory then hunt around for examples to backfill as justification.

Game theory is trying to quantify the qualitative, i.e. it's trying to figure out the nuts and bolts that make up fun. The part you speak of above about noting major features, that's something the nuts and bolts guys do to achieve the objectives of the design, and the design needs to be informed of the desires and motivations of the target audiences.

[Margalis]

Making a game is in large part product improvement.

This is why people complain that game design doesn't seem to have rules of thumb or a common nomenclature when discussing things. Rules of thumb become rules of thumb because they are proven effective over time - and you can't see that unless you examine what came before and see what was working consistently and what wasn't.

My problem with something like MAISE is that it isn't based on a set of defensible observations. As I pointed out in that thread, I can come up with 100 systems off the top of my head which appear to be as good as MAISE. Without a foundation of observations it's impossible to differentiate the 5 of those sytems that are useful from the 95 that are not. There is no evidence that MAISE is helpful or that the categories chosen make sense. Clearly it is based on observations but those observations haven't been analyzed or even written down anywhere. I'm all for determining what the motivations of players are, but MAISE doesn't do that. It's just pure conjecture.

[HaemishM]

It's based on the observations of a man who has helped develop 1 successful MMOG, including doing many MANY different analysis of player tendencies, as well as lead designing another game that got shitcanned. I'd say it's from a pretty decent set of observations. How many more observations do you need?

[koboshi]

  I think Margalis on the right track with the idea that there needs to be proper study of MMOGs.  But, Margolis, there are procedures to that kind of intellectual advancement. You can’t just jump from inclination to development, as you point out, there should be a stage of scientific research. But for a scientific exploration you need two things, a hypothesis and a goal. This is after all an applied science. Most of these pie-in-the-sky grandiose theories that get posted on sites, like this, or the personal blogs of developers, are attempting to define either goals or hypotheses.

  For example, Haemish's article seeks to define the goal of the development of a game, not only by defining the intended goal (somewhere on the game side of the scope of game and world) but the scope of possible goals (defining the limits of all that lies between game and world). These theories are then put on display, not only to receive the cheers and jeers of the readers, but to have the flaws and strengths of the theory laid bare. Eventually it may come to a point where none of those in the discussion can see an obvious flaw in the theory, or counter theory in debate. The last refuge of those who debate on these topics is to call for the writer to 'put their money where their mouth is' and apply the theory to a game (experiment) and see how it succeeds or fails, or other wise, to call for the writer to 'prove it' (show studies). At which point the theory may progress on to experimentation or further study. (Of course it is also an argument used too often by the intellectually lazy just to get out of proving their own objections)

  However that is not to say that the discussion of an insignificant lump of vague, theoretical bullshit is of no value. It is during that step that many theories can be destroyed outright; 'Go directly back to the drawing board. Do not pass go. Do not collect seed money.' Conversely the theory may strike a nerve with readers, leaving the impression that the theory is worthy of further study. There is also the dissemination of ideas. Game theories floated around here, for example, are usually posted with not only the understanding, but the hope, that the theories may be taken by others and studied or applied.

  As for your definition of “Wild West PVP” (I think that its obvious from my avatar that love the name) you are yourself offering up a grandiose theory of game design, and with a hell of a lot less supporting evidence than you have demanded from others. But, as a proffered theory, I think it does hold much promise as a definition, just as the distinction of world and game have. I further see that the definition of both Wild West PVP and Competitive PVP fall nicely within the spectrum of game and world which is evidence that both are useful definitions of concepts.

  I have a counter demand for you, validate this definition:

Griefing is - getting your jollies out of making the game not fun for others.

  This is a very popular definition and although I have no problem accepting it as true I do think there needs to be a clearer definition of the suspect, after all they are public enemy number one. I personally have only met two PKers who could fit the typical definition and they were two different types completely. In one case a spawn camper ran from me when I, unlike others in the game, returned fire instead of just making a b-line for the next city. In the other occasion I took the same tack and the player was driven by the challenge to focus solely on me. In both cases I was of extreme low level (1 and 3) and facing a much higher level player (10 and 15). Point is: same situation, very different reactions. That’s not consistent with a single player/personality type. Despite the fact that your definition is better than most, a.k.a. PKer = fucker, it is still not a particularly useful one. I disagree with the conclusions of the MAISE paper but not with its intended methodology, understanding the motivations of players is useful in game design. We cant have a rational discussion of how to properly remove PKers from MMOGs while it remains essentially a question of ‘how do we properly remove evil from MMOGs’ so how 'bout you (or anyone else for that matter) put your keen intellect to the study of the profile of a PKer. Or were you just throwing out your own “blah blah PK blah blah PvP blah blah Wild West”?

[Margalis]

My definition of griefers isn't all that great. There are giefers that operate to make the game not fun for you, then there are people who just like to break rules. However "breaking the rules" almost always ends up making the game not fun for you.

When you make something like a MMORPG you have to assume that people will try to do anything. If they can kill they same guy 50 times in a row they will. If they can shoot their own teammates they will. If they can stand in a doorway and make it impossible to get in they will. MMORPGs have to be designed defensively. (Or policed heavy-handedly) Just like when you design a networked game you assume the client is in the hands of the enemy. In a MMORPG you have to assume that some segment out there is going to do what the vast majority of players wouldn't like them too.

As far as my theories about the different types of PvP, I can list a number of examples that support it:

Some people bitching about the honor system in WoW being revoked and some not caring.
Some people bitching about being killed while low on health and some calling that good strategy.
Some people bitching about uneven numbers and some seeing that as a challenge.
Some people bitching about level differences and some saying it's survival of the fittest.

That isn't to say there are only two camps, or there isn't any crossover. For example in WoW it's really not a Wild West situation at the macro level because of the two sides. In WoW you can be relatively certain that your alliance buddies aren't going to screw you and you can feel relatively safe deep in alliance territory. (If you are alliance) That's not really the same as "trust no one."

However beyond that you can be gang-banged in a 10 on 1 situation or killed while fighting a mob or killed by a guy 40 levels above you. I think that a totally open kill anyone at any time game would be very hard to make work, because it makes all sorts of grief tactics pretty easy. Especially if player populations are large enough that you can't really form consistent, trusted groups.

In the real wild west you can at least make some friends an while you can't be 100% certain they won't turn on you it's better than nothing. In a MMORPG where people are travelling all over the place, logging in and out, subbing or unsubbing it's hard to do.  Although large guilds basically approximate the factions in WoW. A game with totally open PvP would probably be ok if most players were members of large guilds. (Large enough to always have a crowd to roll with)

Even people who want a really open PvP system would probably get annoyed if someone killed them over and over again for days in a row and the game allowed that. So it isn't absolute. But I would say that there are two distinct philosphies - people who want any thing at any time (with protection against extreme degenerate cases like being killed for a month without moving) and people who want some sort of structure and "fairness." Battlegrounds are a good example of the latter. They ensure about even numbers and about even levels. (Or something like that anyway)

I feel very confident that there are at least these two types of PvP players because you can see the same arguments between them pop up over and over again.

"He killed me right after I fought a mob."
"That's called good strategy."
"No, that's not fair and not fun."
"Why did you sign up for PvP then carebear?"

You see that sort of thing all the time. Because both people want PvP, they just have very different expectations of what that means.

You could probably divide these groups roughly with the following:

Group 1: People who thought the honor system would be a good idea assuming it could be made to work.
Group 2: People who thought the honor system was irrelevant even if it could be made to work correctly.

[Raph]

My point was that a game with PvE that could get you flagged for PvP would be called a PvP server by just about everyone until WoW's launch. Not that the system is identical to UO or SWG--that's not what I said.

[El Gallo]

I don't think anyone would call that a PvP server rather than a PvP switch.  Maybe I overestimate them, but I would not have (and I am frequently characterized as a fairly strident anti-PvP person).

What WoW has are town guards -- utterly worthless, easily avoidable NPCs -- you can attack to flag yourself for 5 minutes.  It's functionally identical to a PvP switch (the only benefit of attacking a guard rather than hitting /pvp is that it allows you to communicate, via the other faction's world- and local-defense channels, that you are in a certain location looking for some PvP action).

To say it's a PvP server because the PvP switch has a mob model rather than a ui botton (or a zoneline, or an object to click, or whatever) is to vaunt form over substance: it entirely misses the point of what makes a PvP server a PvP server and what makes a PvE server a PvE server.  It's like saying the green Asheron's Call servers were really PvP servers deep down because they had orbs you could click that would flag you for PvP.  The orbs served no other purpose other than to flag you, just like town guards.  Neither one can fairly be characterized as PvE content except, again, in the most formalistic sense.

There was much more player conflict and meaningful playerkilling on a green EQ server than there is on a green WoW server (and arguably a red WoW server).  There was much, much, much, much, much more player conflict and meaningful playerkilling on a red EQ server than there is on a green WoW server.  That's the substantive difference.

[Merusk]

My point was that a game with PvE that could get you flagged for PvP would be called a PvP server by just about everyone until WoW's launch. Not that the system is identical to UO or SWG--that's not what I said.

Ah, I get your meaning now, but it's not what you initially typed if you go back and read it. I apologize for my snarkiness. 

Anywho, I'm still pissed Outcasting never got it's chance and was shot-down without a trial.  I still want someone to try a system like that in a game.  It's no more complicated than WoW's flagging, which I think was part of what you were getting at.

Also, I agree with El Gallo's assessments in the posts above, except maybe the last bit about more meangful PK on green EQ servers than red WoW servers.  (Since I'm assuming the PK he's talking about is intentional training and inciting player death via the mobs.)

[Hoax]

We are analyzing the wrong problems, one can't implement "wildwest" pvp in these games because of the type of content they have been filled with and therefor the player actions they cater to.

They are populated by the wrong type of players (achievers) and designed to provide the wrong type of content (AI bashing for lewt).  The question shouldn't be how do we protect the non-combatants from the griefers in our VW but is there truly a market for a world where the players are the content.  If your only option when starting up the game are:
-kill other players for fun and profit
-create things for other players for profit and satisfaction
-protect other players for the satisfaction of being the good guy
ect.

With no option being, kill stupid monsters over and over to increase character power and gain items your not going to have all the bitching that comes from people being murdered while they were trying to defeat this trivial challenge.  Content restriction only matters because content is essential for character development in WoW/DAOC/EQ.

*sigh*  not sure if that gets my point across, but it'll have to do for now.

[koboshi]

We are analyzing the wrong problems, one can't implement "wildwest" pvp in these games because of the type of content they have been filled with and therefor the player actions they cater to.

  I don’t think anyone is advocating conversion of an MMOG to a MMOVW. (At least I'm not) Such a transition would be so large as to be essentially changing the game after purchase. Such a drastic change might even expose the producer to a legal action (bait and switch). Having said that, PVE and PVP are not mutually exclusive elements. In an MMO which contains "Wild West" PVP it just means that, like with every other in game action, the player must be aware of the possibilities of PVP and play accordingly.

[Hoax]

I'm saying that including PvE is what creates this can of worms that right now people claim are caused by PvP.  I find that to be complete horseshit.  They do not coexist well, thats a fact.  When you have spawns, you can have content that can be restricted.  When you have monsters you have people killing people engaged with said monsters, or training them onto them.  Without the monsters there is no excuse for not being prepared to face player enemies.

There is a reason that on these boards when WoW came out most people went to PvE servers, the reasoning from what I remember reading was an almost universal feeling that went something like:  "I dont want to be ganked while I'm trying to xp/quest/farm/get this item I need" or "I dont like getting ganked by higher level people where I stand no chance".  These are products of pvp being slapped on to an EQ clone not intrinsic to open pvp in my mind.

Sure people will get gang banged, they will get ganked after a fight, but when there aren't AI critters to whack and overly important item/levels to be ground out I really think it becomes much less of a problem.

[koboshi]

I'm saying that including PvE is what creates this can of worms that right now people claim are caused by PvP. I find that to be complete horseshit. They do not coexist well, thats a fact. When you have spawns, you can have content that can be restricted. When you have monsters you have people killing people engaged with said monsters, or training them onto them. Without the monsters there is no excuse for not being prepared to face player enemies.

  There is no excuse for not being prepared to face player enemies, regardless. The only reason someone should expect not to be attacked is if the game forbids it, otherwise it would be retarded not to be concerned about what happens after a fight.

There is a reason that on these boards when WoW came out most people went to PvE servers, the reasoning from what I remember reading was an almost universal feeling that went something like: "I dont want to be ganked while I'm trying to xp/quest/farm/get this item I need" or "I dont like getting ganked by higher level people where I stand no chance". These are products of pvp being slapped on to an EQ clone not intrinsic to open pvp in my mind.

  Where DOES this expectation of safety come from? Do you even read the name of the game before you start to play? World of WAR-craft, it’s fucking war! If you don’t want war, go play A Tale in the Desert, otherwise what the fuck did you expect! I mean I know what I expected when I joined SWG, war in space. I didn’t fucking get it though. I got the fucking code duello. I couldn’t even kill a fucking rebel without asking his permission first, what kind of fucked up war is that?!?

Sure people will get gang banged, they will get ganked after a fight, but when there aren't AI critters to whack and overly important item/levels to be ground out I really think it becomes much less of a problem.

  I agree. If you remove the players from the game there are very few complaints. Seriously this is your solution, remove the game? Throw out the baby and keep the bath water?

[Kail]

Where DOES this expectation of safety come from? Do you even read the name of the game before you start to play? World of WAR-craft, it’s fucking war!

And yet not, I feel obliged to point out, a "World."  The point isn't that people should be safe, and everyone should get along and sing songs.  The point is that it's a game, and as such, it needs to be fun.  This is crucial.  It's the whole point.  If your game is not fun, you have a shitty, shitty game.  You can't justify making it a frustrating rage generator based on the fact that it's got the word "War" in the title.

I don't think the idea that Hoax is talking about has much to do with the competitive nature of PvP per se.  PvP can be fun, and PvE can be fun.  But you do NOT want to put goals in your game that run at nintey degrees to each other, the way PvP and PvE do.  With something like Counterstrike, or Planetside, you've got one objective: defeat the enemy.  The enemy has one objective: defeat you.  The game is a competition, and as such, it can be fun in a competitive way.  Or, you've got something more world oriented; the line you used about how the Alliance/Horde or the Empire/Rebellion or whatever are SUPPOSED to be at war, and therefore they should be able to kill each other.  Or maybe you just want some kind of a "Wild West" free-for-all.  This kind of thing is fine by itself, and can be fun if it's handled well.

The problem comes in when you add PvE to the mix.  Now, suddenly, I've got one of two goals: either PvP related goals (defeat the enemy) or PvE related goals (grind, grind, grind for phat lewtz).  And the enemy has either of those two goals, as well.  And if I'm trying to PvE while he's trying to PvP, I'm being prevented from playing my game while he's forcing me to play his.  And since 99% of these games force you to wade through oceans of PvE in order to achieve ANYTHING in the game (including success in PvP), the fact that PvE is the redheaded stepchild in this equation is a serious issue.  It's frustrating.  Frustration, for most people, is not fun.  And, to repeat myself, if your game is not fun, it's a shitty game.  Since our problem stems from the fact that PvP and PvE do not coexist well, it seems like the simplest solution would be to eliminate one or the other.

I don't know that they're automatically logically exclusive elements, but they don't compliment each other well.  If you have players participating in PvE unable to be attacked by players participating in PvP (as is the case in WoW's PvE servers), then fine.  They don't, presumably, hurt each other that much.  But they also don't compliment each other very well, and the closer you try to bring them (by making PvE the key to acquiring gear/abilities that will allow you to be competitive in PvP, for example), the harder it gets to do what you want (rather than what you're forced to do).  Eventually, you've got to ask why you've got these two mechanics in the same game at all, anyway, if they've always got to be so isloated in order to work.

[Margalis]

Wow. People are still not getting this. So I will be concise.

Argument: PvP and PvE don't mix well.

BULLSHIT. (Except I will agree that people looking for primarily a PvP experience won't like it if they have to PvE, and there are balance problems to work out) That argument is not right at all. Again you need to distinguish between Wild West and Competitive PvP.

Wild West PvP MIXES FINE with PvP. So someone killed you while you were fighting a mob? Guess what - it's the wild west mother fuckers! I shot you in the back while you were panning for gold. That's how it works! That's the "wild" part!

Again let me point out the argument you see constantly repeated:

Person A: Hey that guy killed me while I was healing from fighting a mob.
Person B: That's called "strategy."
Person A: No that's cheap!

Who is right? IT DEPENDS. Is the game supposed to be Wild West PvP or Competitive PvP? You guys are arguing about whether shooting someone in the back while they were panning for gold is fun. It is, for some people. For others it is not.

In WoW if you don't want that to happen to you play on a PvE server and get your PvP in battlegrounds. The important part is recognizing that there are two different PvP audiences and acting accordingly. You can try to appeal only to one crowd or you CAN appeal to both. You just have to be aware that there ARE two.

WoW does a very good job of this. You can choose competitive PvP (PvE server with battlegrounds), wild west (PvP) server, both or neither.

[HaemishM]

I'm saying that including PvE is what creates this can of worms that right now people claim are caused by PvP. I find that to be complete horseshit. They do not coexist well, thats a fact. When you have spawns, you can have content that can be restricted. When you have monsters you have people killing people engaged with said monsters, or training them onto them. Without the monsters there is no excuse for not being prepared to face player enemies.

  There is no excuse for not being prepared to face player enemies, regardless.

Unless, of course, you don't think that sort of thing happens in online roleplaying games. Player expectations can have a huge impact on that. Many people didn't expect to get attacked in UO. Hell, for all its play to crush marketing, there were people who bought Shadowbane on release who did not know they could or would be playerkilled. When they were, they screamed bloody murder. Some people, and the number of those are going to grow as MMOG's go mainstream, just don't expect to be attacked by other players. We can call them stupid, but they are really just ignorant.

Where DOES this expectation of safety come from?

Pen and paper roleplaying games, single-player roleplaying games, single player games of all stripes.

Do you even read the name of the game before you start to play? World of WAR-craft, it’s fucking war!

As I said before, despite heavy PVP marketing, people bought and played Shadowbane not expecting to be killed by other players, no matter the title.

[AOFanboi]

I shot you in the back while you were panning for gold. That's how it works! That's the "wild" part!

Let me reintroduce you to the "game" part.

If a golddigger is constantly shot in the back (assuming this interrupts the "panning for gold"), that content is, in effect, inaccessible. If the player wanted to play a golddigger in a Wild West game, they will leave because that game fails to actually have it. So why put that content in in the first place? Why waste developer resources on something that is little more than a griefer's trap?

Reductio ad minimum: Wild West PvP == Unreal Tournament.

In real life, remorseless killers like Billy the Kid were the exception. Game characters do not come with a conscience built in. (Hey, game feature idea!). So players will have no reason not to shoot in that situation.

Frontier 1859 solveds this by letting crime have a cost: You can be arrested, judged and executed (permadeath, folks). Other MMOGs fail at the "consequences for griefing" test, and hence will attract the asstards.

[koboshi]

Person A: Hey that guy killed me while I was healing from fighting a mob.
Person B: That's called "strategy."
Person A: No that's cheap!

 No this is more like...
Person A: I don’t like being killed so you shouldn’t be allowed to have games where you can
Me: But I like the freedom that such systems implicitly allow.
Person A: It doesn’t matter. If I join one of those kinds of games I’m going to bitch, moan, cry, and scream, until they destroy that part of the game, because if I don’t like it no one gets to like it.

  Or...
Person A: Hey that guy killed me while I was out in the deep dark woods all alone
Me: Why did you do that when you knew that it was putting yourself in danger?
Person A: I shouldn’t have been in danger!
Me: But you knew you were. Just because you don’t want to be, doesn’t make it not so.
Person A: you just don’t understand my deep personal inexplicable pain, so I will forgive you.
Me: Answer the damn question!

I'm saying that including PvE is what creates this can of worms that right now people claim are caused by PvP. I find that to be complete horseshit. They do not coexist well, thats a fact. When you have spawns, you can have content that can be restricted. When you have monsters you have people killing people engaged with said monsters, or training them onto them. Without the monsters there is no excuse for not being prepared to face player enemies.

 There is no excuse for not being prepared to face player enemies, regardless.

Unless, of course, you don't think that sort of thing happens in online roleplaying games. Player expectations can have a huge impact on that. Many people didn't expect to get attacked in UO. Hell, for all its play to crush marketing, there were people who bought Shadowbane on release who did not know they could or would be playerkilled. When they were, they screamed bloody murder. Some people, and the number of those are going to grow as MMOG's go mainstream, just don't expect to be attacked by other players. We can call them stupid, but they are really just ignorant.

This doesn’t make any sense. Despite what those crazy particle physics lectures taught you, expectation doesn’t define reality. If I buy Hello Kitty Painting Fun Time I can’t get pissed off because I can’t kill all the Sanrio pals with a BFG, nor can I expect that the game will be altered to accommodate me. Stupid or ignorant, it makes no difference to me. I’m not going to buy Tabula Rasa with the expectation that I will be able to force it to change into 4v4 Extreme Soccer: Mickey Mouse Edition, and yet, these ignorant players can turn it into NERF football?

Where DOES this expectation of safety come from?

Pen and paper roleplaying games, single-player roleplaying games, single player games of all stripes.

That’s a cheap excuse, if I play fighting games all my life then play an MMO I don’t get complain when I get an MMO and not a fighting game.  I get that MMOGs are separate from, and shouldn’t be as, MMORPGs but that doesn’t mean MMOGs can’t be anything but MMORPGs.
  Alternatively the expectation of RPGness shouldn’t preclude pking either. Back when I did play pen and paper games I did get killed by a fellow player once or twice, so maybe the problem isn’t the game but the closed minded ness of most players to the real possibilities of an RPG.

[Sky]

I shot you in the back while you were panning for gold. That's how it works! That's the "wild" part!

Let me reintroduce you to the "game" part.

If a golddigger is constantly shot in the back (assuming this interrupts the "panning for gold"), that content is, in effect, inaccessible. If the player wanted to play a golddigger in a Wild West game, they will leave because that game fails to actually have it. So why put that content in in the first place? Why waste developer resources on something that is little more than a griefer's trap?

Reductio ad minimum: Wild West PvP == Unreal Tournament.

In real life, remorseless killers like Billy the Kid were the exception. Game characters do not come with a conscience built in. (Hey, game feature idea!). So players will have no reason not to shoot in that situation.

Frontier 1859 solveds this by letting crime have a cost: You can be arrested, judged and executed (permadeath, folks). Other MMOGs fail at the "consequences for griefing" test, and hence will attract the asstards.

That was my gripe about UO pvp. Instead of simply making more resources harvestable within the safety of justice zones, they made a gold pharming mirror. I never had a problem with pks if I was on my combat character, it was only when I'd get jumped by someone when I'm mining ore...who would then complain that I only had ore and picks on me. This is also where a smaller and restricted community like Siege Perilous really shined, because you hang out killing enough miners/smiths, and it gets tough finding someone to repair your stuff, there is actual reputation, not that shoddy coded stuff.

You pretty much can't put anything other than open pvp in a game, or the open pvp enables people to disrupt the rest of the game. Early UO was close, the monster bashing getting interrupted was no big deal, it was coded that way. But if you want to include a variety of playstyles, you also have to protect those playstyles to some extent (without completely seperating them, see: Trammel), or you'll be left with only the open pvp folks (no sheep, so to speak, see: Felucca).

As always, this debate is blurring the line between pvp (good) and grief/pk (bad). If you have the former, you'll have the latter, it's human nature.

Koboshi, you've got issues.

[koboshi]

I shot you in the back while you were panning for gold. That's how it works! That's the "wild" part!

Let me reintroduce you to the "game" part.

If a golddigger is constantly shot in the back (assuming this interrupts the "panning for gold"), that content is, in effect, inaccessible. If the player wanted to play a golddigger in a Wild West game, they will leave because that game fails to actually have it. So why put that content in in the first place? Why waste developer resources on something that is little more than a griefer's trap?

Reductio ad minimum: Wild West PvP == Unreal Tournament.

 That's just it. As a gold digger in the Wild West there was nothing more threatening than claim jumpers, and other thieves. To remove claim jumpers is to leave the player with a sieve and a stream. Click pan for gold, wait for animation, repeat. Without the claim jumper that game is the worst kind of grinding shit fest. As far as the UT = WWPvP its just not so. Adding PvP makes it so everyone needs to have a gun and know how to use it, but it doesn’t mean that’s the only way to survive, nor that it will always be that way. Hell, if it was, the west would still be a lawless country where you'd only ever find the quick and the dead.

In real life, remorseless killers like Billy the Kid were the exception. Game characters do not come with a conscience built in. (Hey, game feature idea!). So players will have no reason not to shoot in that situation.

Frontier 1859 solveds this by letting crime have a cost: You can be arrested, judged and executed (permadeath, folks). Other MMOGs fail at the "consequences for griefing" test, and hence will attract the asstards.

I agree with these sentiments whole heartedly with the freedom to kill must come the responsibility for the decision. I think the worst kind of PKer is one who can hide behind a temporary flag.

When you’re a jet, you’re a jet all the way, from your first cigarette, to your last dieing day.

[HaemishM]

This doesn’t make any sense. Despite what those crazy particle physics lectures taught you, expectation doesn’t define reality.

Expectations define perceptions, and in MMOG's (and most other consumer businesses), perception defines reality. If a consumer sees a game as an RPG, they probably don't expect that the guy who is helping them kill the foozle is going to turn around and kill them. The first time I was ever PKed in an online game, Dark Sun Online, I was flabbergasted. Not because I was killed, but because I was killed for NO REASON. He couldn't get money from me, he had nothing to gain because none of the quests rewarded killing other players, there were no real hostile factions, and he got no experience from it. He just did it BECAUSE HE COULD. That totally threw me off, because even though as I mention in the article I had talked about making an assassin's guild, I would at least have been killing people for a reason. This was akin to me walking down the street and getting donkey punched simply because it could be done. And I had no recourse in the matter, no justice system to appeal to in-game other than the meta-game development company.

Again, I had no problem with being killed, just being killed for no goddam reason. It was nonsensical. But that's because my desire for a game was conflicting with someone else's.

Where DOES this expectation of safety come from?

Pen and paper roleplaying games, single-player roleplaying games, single player games of all stripes.

That’s a cheap excuse, if I play fighting games all my life then play an MMO I don’t get complain when I get an MMO and not a fighting game.  I get that MMOGs are separate from, and shouldn’t be as, MMORPGs but that doesn’t mean MMOGs can’t be anything but MMORPGs.

No, but when you buy Ultima Online, you expected as an Ultima fan to be playing an Ultima game, only with other people. In an Ultima game, you knew who the enemy was, and it was an NPC. In the Online version, few people expected that another player would be the enemy, and he would be an enemy just because he could be.

Alternatively the expectation of RPGness shouldn’t preclude pking either. Back when I did play pen and paper games I did get killed by a fellow player once or twice, so maybe the problem isn’t the game but the closed minded ness of most players to the real possibilities of an RPG.

Maybe it is close mindedness. But you say it yourself. You were killed by a fellow player once or twice. Out of how many players and how many times you played? I can say that within my many years of PNP, I've never been killed by the deliberate actions of a fellow player, even when "party unity" was illusory. It just didn't happen. And I'd say my experiences fit the majority, while yours are definitely the minority.

[HaemishM]

That's just it. As a gold digger in the Wild West there was nothing more threatening than claim jumpers, and other thieves. To remove claim jumpers is to leave the player with a sieve and a stream. Click pan for gold, wait for animation, repeat. Without the claim jumper that game is the worst kind of grinding shit fest.

But some people like that grindfest. Different desires cause conflicts. Some desires seek to avoid conflict, which is just as valid as the guy who wants to generate conflict.