Dreaming of a World Without PvE

[pxib]

At least he used meaningful = memoriable instead meaningful = punishing which is a step up in my book.

Well as I said elsewhere, what I love about games is the stories I can tell. Memorable games, even silly ones, feel less time-wastey than even the most engaging twitch experience. At least I'm wasting time, but I got a story out of it!

PvP has the real potential IN the persistence. Providing motivation, context, consequences. A reason to fight for, to feel involved, to make choices. Elements that build a world where you have a role. Removing it would mean removing one of its innate and most important qualities.

I agree completely. I don't want these missions to be something the player chooses. They're something the game chooses. Right now Tilwaria controls three mines, a small forest, and the high temple to Aku'rass. Each of those provides Tilwarians with bonuses and gives them access to specific resources, blessings and enchantments. If Borglad wants gems he'll join an "instance" of one of those mines (understanding that there will be a group trying to take over the mine and, in addition to gathering gems, he'll be playing on the defensive side). The game may throw him into a random travel "instance" as he and other miners run into a bunch of Uurite pilgrims on their way to be blessed at the Shrine of Noss. All I mean by "instance" is that it's not part of some solid chunk of world map. Not just anybody can run into or out of it at any time. Outside of a few safe towns, everywhere your character travels is a contained PvP space. The game regulates how many people are playing in any given area. Everything is still meaningful. You can lose that mine, and have to do your future mining at an attacker's disadvantage.

The Shrine of Noss might even be a safe town "instance" which transfers from owner to owner. Players inside get news about how the battles for it are progressing in instances "outside" and, if they're still there when ownership changes they get booted into the battle instances or instanced versions of the Shrine, or, if there are too many, into travel instances where they, as refugees, could run into ambushers or other traveling groups, or whatever.

I like instances because they keep combat manageable and relatively number balanced. Just because they have so far been used to destroy persistance does not mean they must do so.

I summarized what I like and do not like about PvP here, though that particular post is about game combat in general.

My head is officially back in the clouds you bastards.

[schild]

An MMOG with Soul Calibur 2 level combat and a blowjob attachment couldn't put my head back in the clouds these days.

Titan Quest is good stuff though. And I can't wait to play the Chromehounds persistant online server next week.

[Kail]

I like instances because they keep combat manageable and relatively number balanced. Just because they have so far been used to destroy persistence does not mean they must do so.

This seems to be a bit inefficient to me. 

It comes down, again, to people who want a "fair game" versus people who want a "battle" or something.  You've got instances all over the world, what do they do?  In this design, their main purpose seems to be to keep the teams numerically balanced.  Fine, okay.  But then you've also got other things in there, like the fact that one team can control (I assume) all the iron (for example) in the world, which is inherently unbalancing.  If team A and team B are both made up of fifteen guys, but team A has sticks and rocks while team B has enchanted gem encrusted greatswords, team A is going to get stomped every time.  They're not going to think the game is very fair.  You can stick in all kinds of rules and stuff to try and balance it back out, but it's going to get extremely convoluted extremely quickly because you're fighting your own design here.

For instance, in your game, say there are ten iron mines, and the Horde controls them all.  The Alliance tries to take one back, but it's fifteen unequipped Alliance characters versus fifteen Horde characters with huge weapons.  Horde wins.  The Alliance gets pissed off, and attacks a different one, but the same thing happens: fifteen versus fifteen, Horde wins.  Even assuming the Alliance, I dunno, befriended the Ewoks or something, so that they'd have a chance of victory, all the Horde has to do is NOT send anyone to defend those mines, so the instance never begins, and they can continue to fight the Alliance in other areas (for other resources) with their vastly superior equipment.  Now the Alliance has nothing, while the Horde rules the world.  The kicker here is that the smaller your faction is, the easier it is to do this (keeping twenty guys well equipped is much easier than keeping an army well-equipped), so victory will likely go to the faction with FEWER players.  Now the majority of your players are sitting around with crappy weapons and items getting harassed by a tiny group of uber-warriors.

See how these things aren't really lining up well?  Yes, you can ad-hoc some rules in there, give the weaker team weapons or allow them to take an undefended mine, but then why are these mechanics in there in the first place?  The system seems to work against itself.

If you're looking for a fair, balanced, equal game, then I'd argue that instancing things Guild Wars style is the way to go.  No, the game isn't very persistent; that's what makes it fair.  The more persistent you make the world, the less fair it becomes (because if a team looses a fight, they'll be weaker than they were going in, which will make them more likely to loose next time). 

If you don't give a damn about the game being fair, then why instance things?  You're chopping up your world into tiny bits, making people wait in line until a series of arbitrary rules are fulfilled before they can participate in a fight which still isn't fair.  In the Alliance vs. Horde example above, in a non-instanced world, the Horde is going to have to spread their defensive forces around ten iron mines, while the Alliance can just zerg any one of them.  No, it's not fair for the poor Horde soldiers who have to fight ten-to-one odds, but by widening the playing field, you're also making it harder for one team to lock the entire game down.

I have nothing against instancing, and I'd love to see a fun PvP oriented virtual world, but I don't think that you can easily just mash together all the neat things you like about both systems and come up with some uber game that's better than either of them.

[pxib]

... so victory will likely go to the faction with FEWER players.  Now the majority of your players are sitting around with crappy weapons and items getting harassed by a tiny group of uber-warriors.

The obvious flaw I've missed in my breathless hubris. Good show. It hadn't occurred to me that fairness and persistence are so opposed... although it's been proven again and again in the real world as well as within games. Games are fair because everybody agrees on the rules, life is unfair because the side which changes the rules wins. Try to design for both and you're fighting yourself.

Did Richard Bartle already phrase this as a law or should Kail stake his claim now?

[Ambera]

How strong is the community aspect in FPS though? Some of the time when I log on to DaoC I'm tired. I don't want to go out and pwn, I just want to chill and chat with my buddies.

[Trippy]

How strong is the community aspect in FPS though?

It can be very strong, especially in team based FPSes that have some sort of organized play. Unlike MMORPGs, though, you usually don't "log on" to your game client just to talk to your buddies so FPS players go elsewhere for that sort of thing, typically IRC.

[HRose]

I agree completely. I don't want these missions to be something the player chooses. They're something the game chooses. Right now Tilwaria controls three mines, a small forest, and the high temple to Aku'rass. Each of those provides Tilwarians with bonuses and gives them access to specific resources, blessings and enchantments. If Borglad wants gems he'll join an "instance" of one of those mines (understanding that there will be a group trying to take over the mine and, in addition to gathering gems, he'll be playing on the defensive side). The game may throw him into a random travel "instance" as he and other miners run into a bunch of Uurite pilgrims on their way to be blessed at the Shrine of Noss. All I mean by "instance" is that it's not part of some solid chunk of world map. Not just anybody can run into or out of it at any time. Outside of a few safe towns, everywhere your character travels is a contained PvP space. The game regulates how many people are playing in any given area. Everything is still meaningful. You can lose that mine, and have to do your future mining at an attacker's disadvantage.

And I still think you can take all that, put it all in the same shared context and remove the barriers of the instances for a seamless world.

Instancing everything and automatizing the missions means that the players have little control and tactics in the game. Imho those missions should take place ON the world map. These missions could be tools chosen by the players and playing a tactical value in a conquest system. Solving "zerging" is another problem that can be done in other ways. Plus it's another great source of fun a fight that can involve a lot of players in a huge siege. Reducing the game again to just small skirmishes is about limiting its potential.

And, by the way, you just described Mythic's Warhammer.

[HRose]

If you're looking for a fair, balanced, equal game, then I'd argue that instancing things Guild Wars style is the way to go.  No, the game isn't very persistent; that's what makes it fair.  The more persistent you make the world, the less fair it becomes (because if a team looses a fight, they'll be weaker than they were going in, which will make them more likely to loose next time).

You confuse equal-footing with complete staticity here. The fun PvP game isn't the one so "balanced" that is always a draw. The fun PvP is the one where you lose and the game still offers you strategies to overthrow the situation.

As I repeated endelssly along these years, being on the losing side and then fight back till the situation is reverted can be the MOST FUN scenario in a PvP game. Winning an easy battle where you have an advantage isn't all that fun, but it's winning the battle where you have little hope that is truly rewarding.

Concretely this means that a good game isn't the game where noone loses and noone wins. But it's the game where "losing" still hands you fun strategies and possibilities where you can still have fun and try to revert that situation.

"Losing" doesn't mean that in that particular state the gameplay in the game sucks. You can open up new possibilities that unlock only when you are losing. So "losing" could even be a key for something fun that wasn't possible before.

Of course the losing side shouldn't have the same objectives and gameplay of the winning side. That's what leads to a frustrating game. But if the conditions and gameplay adapt, then the game can be a hell of fun and incredibly dynamic.

Think for example to a situation where you are excessively outnumbered and lost a significant amount of your territories. In my idea you just don't have to fight back an impossible battle (since they are zerging you and you have no hope) but this scenario may open up special "stealth missions" that you can use to sneak behind the enemy lines and disrupt the expansion of the other team.

In short: losing doesn't necessary mean that what you have to do is less fun.

[Akkori]

What if there were several ways to participate in PvP? I've been playing BF2 a lot lately, and although its not an MMO... hmmm... well, maybe it is.... but anyway, one of the things I like about it is there are several roles to play, and a few of them dont *have* to include picking up your gun and shooting someone.

I was always fond of the unrealized potential of the Squad Leader in SWG. Their job was mainly to hang back and direct the actions of the others. Medic run around reviving and healing, support replentish ammo and lay down some light artillery, Engineer lay Mines and booby traps, etc...

I think it would be stellar if this would happen in an MMO like it does in BF2. Hell, lets dream big... what if there was a CENCOM for my faction, and I, as the General, was able to organize and manage several simultaneous battles (instanced)? These battles were of a limited length with a clearly defined winning scenario, and the results had a meaningful effect on the game world by influencing the setup of the next battle.

My biggest beef with MMO combat in general is the friggin boredom. Click monster till it dies. Click next monster, etc... ad nauseum. No appreciable tactical options like cover, terrain, height, lighting, etc...

[HRose]

I agree that offering completely different roles (not only as "skills" but also as different goals while playing depending on your role) and tactical variations is something required for next-gen PvP.

My old idea about the PvP progression was about unblocking new roles, all based on a squad system that branches up. For example for one group leader (with set skills) you always need five base soldiers. Your character could unblock the "group leader" skills by collecting points, but you would become a "group leader" and use its skills only when effectively leader of a group with five standard soldiers within. So unblocking the class wouldn't let you use its skills automatically. You'd need to group and then the people in that group to "enable" you.

Instead of a scenario where everyone needs to "max out", the idea was to develop a squad system with linked groups that would unblock new roles. With those roles (such as leaders) voted through a public voting system.

Let's say that a raid leader has access to really significant skills and buffs. The rules in my model would allow only one "raid leader" to exist every 20 players. This would prevent a situation where these PvP roles become just another treadmill to catass. Instead these class would really go to differentiate gameplay. Setting different goals and mechanics for each class.

Ahh, old ideas :)

[Akkori]

And in reality, not everyone *wants* to tank the dragon. Some people *like* to hang back and snipe at it, or try to nail it with a fireball. its really amazing how much more effective it is in BF2 to see a group of players form a squad and actually USE it. Even though the medic is always running around like mad, didging bullets and shrapnel so he can revive or heal others, he plays an important role. When you find that magic mixture of people who are willing to fill a needed role, the effect is much greater than the sum of the parts.

I can totally see a PvP only MMO. Hell, make one based off BF2, and you'll have an engine that handles up to 64 players inside a small radius, with a pretty dang nice draw distance, 3D flight, pretty cool lighting and sound effects.... and make it persistent. The cool thing about Eve is how with only one shard, they can make changes based on players actions. If they want. ATitD does it too.

We just need someone to put the pieces together. I nominate myself. And I'm still waiting for my 20 million dollars.

[HRose]

And in reality, not everyone *wants* to tank the dragon. Some people *like* to hang back and snipe at it, or try to nail it with a fireball. its really amazing how much more effective it is in BF2 to see a group of players form a squad and actually USE it. Even though the medic is always running around like mad, didging bullets and shrapnel so he can revive or heal others, he plays an important role. When you find that magic mixture of people who are willing to fill a needed role, the effect is much greater than the sum of the parts.

Role-based PvP is something used even in Planetside.

In DAoC the Realm Abilities have the problem that they give you power, so the goal is about having all your group at the higher end. The higher the better for everyone. Despite the diminishing returns you can still have a scenario where PvP is definitely "unfair", with a full group of maxed RR against a group at RR1. And in a few cases you could be left out of a group since there may be better players available.

My idea was to fix that problem. Unblocking a "role" would give you new skills, buffs, new gameplay possibilities and so on. But each new role doesn't stack on the other.

Moreover, you cannot have a scenario where you can build a group filled with "x" role. Because the requirements to use higher roles is about organizing large squads and battles. So if the battle is 20 vs 20 and the requirement for a "raid leader" are 20 players, then there can be only one raid leader for each of these two groups.

So, for example, in a WoW battleground you'll never have a scenario where one group has players all at rank 1 and the other all at rank 14. There would be much more *balance*. While the "progression" would still be possible without screwing that balance.

The other aspect of the idea was then not only giving new powers with each role, but also a different way to play. So different gameplay, different goals, where at the end each group works together on the various layers of the battle. Which would make PvP extremely more involving and tactical.

At the end, to enable all this system, you cannot just go in a battle on your own (because of players' requirements to unblock roles) but the system will encourage the players to really organize squads with definite groups, classes and tactics. So a rather complex battle system, with the goal to organize the large battles into something tactical, instead of just having unorganized zergs that just charge back and forth.

[HRose]

Oh, think to this raid interface.

Instead of having all the players in the raid divided into groups, the UI will display graphically the ranks hierarchy, the raid leader at the top and then all the different commanders, different squads possible, specialized groups and so on till the bottom level of the basic "soldier".

As a raid is built all the forty players will be just soldiers, so at the bottom of this graph. Then one or more of these players will propose himself as a candidate for "raid leader" and then voted. Who wins will be moved at the top of the graph.

At this point all the players with a role unblocked different from "soldier" will be able to propose themselves for that role. They would appear in that position in the graph with their name in yellow and the raid leader will have the possibility to select them and confirm, or deny and toss them back at their base role.

Then, the raid leader can also take a player and drag&drop him in a different role. It would be quite usable and you could see at a glance how the raid is organized between the various ranks/roles, where you are supposed to go and so on.

Plus you can then give all sort of skills and special powers because the raid will be always balanced since there will be always just one raid leader for each raid. He could even have his personal stats multiplied, area-based skills like morale boosts at a long radius, AoE shields to protect an area, wards and so on. It would be a hell of fun.

[stray]

Once you get carried away with all kinds of mass scaled, "strategical" ideas like this, you might as well give each player 30 or 40 controllable bots to command, pin him against another player with the same setup, put them on a battlefield and call it a RTS.

[HRose]

Once you get carried away with all kinds of mass scaled, "strategical" ideas like this, you might as well give each player 30 or 40 controllable bots to command, pin him against another player with the same setup, put them on a battlefield and call it a RTS.

In fact the whole idea IS about integrating RTS elements in normal PvP battles. It's spice.

My opinion about the zergs is that they are unfun just because they are disorganized and basically there's no gameplay left. The point was about creating new rules to regulate and make those battle special. Instead of just a mass of players.

Right now we have rules and mechanics only regulating groups of players. The zerg is mindless. But if we bring in mechanics and rules that organize the "zerg" and larger battles then I think things can be really fun.

Because I believe there's a huge potential of fun in those massive battles with a lot of players involved.

[stray]

My opinion about the zergs is that they are unfun just because they are disorganized and basically there's no gameplay left.

There will always be zergs. Even in strategical games (hell, the word was invented from a strategy game). Very few people would take advantage of features like that. And even the ones that would are pretty much already doing it and going to kick your ass anyways.

Besides all that, the solution to good PvP is not some top down approach that just looks at how to organize players. You've got to solve it from the bottom up. None of that organization means anything if the combat system is trash. And a combat system with "raid leaders with multiplied stats" and "40 players with defined roles" is trash. That shit is made for zerging.

You can't control the nature of zergs, but you can control their strength -- Making a combat system that allows one skilled player to possibly rock the shit out of dozens is a zerg problem solved.

[HRose]

Very few people would take advantage of features like that. And even the ones that would are pretty much already doing it and going to kick your ass anyways.

People WILL use that. Because if you are alone you can use only your class skills. While organizing into raids allows you to still fully use your class AND get access to the skills of the various rank/roles.

So an organized raid of 40 players is significantly stronger than 40 ungrouped players. There's a strong, practical incentive there and people WILL use it if they want to play.

Besides all that, the solution to good PvP is not some top down approach that just looks at how to organize players. You've got to solve it from the bottom up. None of that organization means anything if the combat system is trash. And a combat system with "raid leaders with multiplied stats" and "40 players with defined roles" is trash. That shit is made for zerging.

But it's in fact about changing the combat system. Battles now stack horribly because the large majority of the mechanics are thought and designed with the 5-man group in mind. The "zerg" isn't something DESIGNED to be fun. It's just a heap of players, hoping that the system that was built for a small group is still decent even where there are more players involved.

My idea isn't about multiplied stats and nothing else. But about roles and gameplay variations.

One of the skills I thought was about a spherical force field, with a radius of, say, 50 meters. This force field could have a duration of two minutes or so, with longer recast timer. For allies the force field is intangibe, so you can move feely in/out of it. For enemies it is impassable. They can move out if they are already inside, but they cannot move in. Only ranged attacks and spells work through it and it can absorb up to 70% of the damage or so.

It's one simple skill that WILL somewhat organize the battle. Because it defines a space, so, instead of a zerg of sixty players all scattered around, there would be zone of concentration that is clearly visible even if you are far away.

Other skills should work based on similar mechanics. Ways to organize the space and the sqads so that the players stick together and then coordinate attacks between each group.

So skills that affect a lot of players around you, more than skills that boost your own stats. Morale boosts at a radius, wards, shields, "zones of influences" (think to an area where all healing spell casted receive a boost, all healers would concentrate there, but at the same time they would become an easy target for an AoE attack) each with its own bonus/malus etc.. These can be ways to organize the battle instead of just having all players doing the exact same thing.

EDIT: And another idea I had at the time was about "rituals". Types of spells that require more than one caster. One player can initiate a ritual by drawing a big magic circle on the ground and then other casters could position themselves to join the ritual.

Again with the purpose of making the players collaborate and plans tactics instead of just running each on its own in a battle with no sense as it continuously happen in WoW's Alterac Valley. Concrete reasons to *group* and create group mechanics instead of "each on its own".

And remember that the "zerg" is what made Planetside, DAoC and UT2004 Onslaught mode *fun*. Huge battles can offer a kind of fun that is just unique. If well designed.

Problem is that nowadays "zerg" is unfun just because all the mechanics are designed for single groups. And not for large battles in mind.

[stray]

People WILL use that.

/shrug

Go play Savage. Good luck on finding a match.

Because if you are alone you can use only your class skills. While organizing into raids allows you to still fully use your class AND get access to the skills of the various rank/roles.

My second point addressed this. Fuck classes. Fuck anything resembling an RPG. That's a big reason why these games (and the PvP) suck.

But it's in fact about changing the combat system. Battles now stack horribly because the large majority of the mechanics are thought and designed with the 5-man group in mind. The "zerg" isn't something DESIGNED to be fun. It's just a heap of players, hoping that the system that was built for a small group is still decent even where there are more players involved.

Wait...So you're only talking about fixing "WoW" specifically (telling by your complaint about "5 man groups")? I didn't realize that. Nor do I care really. Sorry. See my above reply. And good luck.

[HRose]

Wait...So you're only talking about fixing "WoW" specifically (telling by your complaint about "5 man groups")? I didn't realize that. Nor do I care really. Sorry. See my above reply. And good luck.

No, I'm making practical examples from games everyone knows so that it's possible for everyone to understand the idea.

But yes, I like these kinds of games (or I wouldn't write about them), and looking for ways to make them much better and solve those problems I recognize.

[Chenghiz]

A raid of 40 players is already significantly more powerful than a pickup group of 40 people because they know how to communicate and coordinate. All your idea will do is make organised, grouped players more powerful than they already are, and make the game less fun for those who don't have the time to find a dedicated raid and the time to set up all the ranks and squads you detail.

[HRose]

A raid of 40 players is already significantly more powerful than a pickup group of 40 people because they know how to communicate and coordinate. All your idea will do is make organised, grouped players more powerful than they already are, and make the game less fun for those who don't have the time to find a dedicated raid and the time to set up all the ranks and squads you detail.

Yes and no.

I'm a DAoC player and I know that one of its positive traits over WoW is that when you go PvP you are really cooperating with your group or more players. In WoW you can just go on your own in a disorganized battle. In DAoC you don't leave a keep if you aren't in a group or are a stealther.

My idea is a definite incentive to PvP as a coordinated effort. With the goal of making this way to play a standard for everyone. So my goal is integrating the players in the process, not let them out. Setting the ranks shouldn't be a daunting process more than joining a battleground in DAoC and finding a group.

Beside that, the idea starts from a single group up to larger raids. Get five players together and you can already play with some PvP ranks. Organize your group with others and you have access to more combinations and variations.

The goal is that if you are a solo player who just logged in, you should easily find groups already established because there's a strong incentive to cooperate, instead of each going on his own.

Since the duty to organize roles is mostly about group and raid leaders, then not every single player has to go through that.

The only real problem is about having enough tactical depth that not every players is encouraged to bundle in one spot only. But that's more tied to the geographical conquest system (if you focus on one point, you expose yourself from other sides and regions that are undefended).

Think to a scenario where you are automatically put in a raid the second you enter a PvP map. Then the raid leader will drag&drop you in the appropriate rank and group (after you send a request). That's my goal, without being forced to and with other incentives to not have one-only raid, but more than one depending on tactical needs coming from tactical decisions and the way the conquest system works.

[Nebu]

I've been lurking this and I figured I'd add my two cents.  Fixing pvp games comes down to a few key ingredients that while sounding simple, seem near impossible to obtain. 

1. Take a tougher stance against players with destructive behavior.  Those players are the reason most people opt out of pvp. 
2. Remove exploits that give players an edge.  Many of these are coupled to targeting, character location, and the generation of lag.  Poor character class balance, item balance, and realm/race imbalances can add to this. 
3. Have a system that relies on character development as well as player skill.  In DAoC, a skilled low rr player CAN beat an unskilled high rr player.  Similarly, a skilled high rr player is a formidable opponent.  I think this balance aids retention and gives players a feel of being a real hero in game.  It also gives incentives for low rr players to hone their skills.  I always enjoy beating those with higher status than me.  It's like a built in difficulty setting. 
4. Give players a reason to want to pvp.  Unfortunately, this is often done in rewards which turn out to be imbalancing.  Small gains (diversity instead of power was a great move in Planetside), titles, and/or realm bonuses are a start.

A few comments.

My idea is a definite incentive to PvP as a coordinated effort. With the goal of making this way to play a standard for everyone. So my goal is integrating the players in the process, not let them out. Setting the ranks shouldn't be a daunting process more than joining a battleground in DAoC and finding a group.

Beside that, the idea starts from a single group up to larger raids. Get five players together and you can already play with some PvP ranks. Organize your group with others and you have access to more combinations and variations.

One solution to this is the creation of class-dependancy.  Unfortunately, the gaming community seems to hate this. 

I also find it interesting that we both play DAoC yet see the game so differenty.  The realm vs. realm game in DAoC has very little epic feel to me and often time is just a matter of which side has the superior numbers of the right classes.  I think the skirmishes (8v8) are where DAoC really shines.  These small battles are won with tactics and good communication.  The zerg on zerg warfare is often little more than people spamming keys at random until the larger force has decimated the smaller one.  I also disagree with your statements on realm rank.  Obtaining RR5 takes a couple of weeks of casual play (< 20h a week) and is sufficient to make most people competitive.  The gains from RR5 to RR10 are marginal and take a considerable time commitment.  A solid group of RR5 players can/do compete with the higher RR groups.  I've also found that good players get groups regardless of RR.  If I know a player, their RR has little impact on my decision whether to group with them. 

Think to a scenario where you are automatically put in a raid the second you enter a PvP map. Then the raid leader will drag&drop you in the appropriate rank and group (after you send a request). That's my goal, without being forced to and with other incentives to not have one-only raid, but more than one depending on tactical needs coming from tactical decisions and the way the conquest system works.

Leaders in games are often in that role because of a) thier personality and b) the fact that they live in the game.  I don't want to envision ANY scenario where these players have even the smallest input on my gameplay session.  I don't want cues to RvR.  I don't want other players dropping me in an appropriate ramk/group.  I want the more organic experience that social interaction provides.  If people in game know who I am and how I play, I should have no trouble getting in on the action.

[Chenghiz]

Even if it is easy to get in and out of, I still debate the practicality of the matter. Being limited in your options is exactly what you don't want in a game where people pay money to have fun the way they want. People don't always want to be a cog in the well-oiled machine of war. They will want to solo or duo and assassinate people.

"Play your role" gets old enough in PVE; there's no reason to turn and apply the same model to PVP.

[Nebu]

"Play your role" gets old enough in PVE; there's no reason to turn and apply the same model to PVP.

The counter arguement is: If everyone can do everything, they have no need for eachother beyond scale of force (i.e. numbers).

[Chenghiz]

The counter arguement is: If everyone can do everything, they have no need for eachother beyond scale of force (i.e. numbers).

That's true, but 'scale of force' is but one variable in a conflict. You still need to factor in how well someone plays their character and how well they work with others. It then becomes a matter of 'are you a good player' rather than 'can you spam heals on the MT'. If we're not going for a system that rewards player skill, then sure, HRose's idea works fine.

[damijin]

Could you define "player skill" in the context of an MMO?

I tend to think that player skill in an MMO should be derived from strategy of knowing how to use your class and when. As well as leadership strategy to coordinate the players. To me, HRose's idea sounded convoluted and overcomplicated, but it rewards "player skill" just as much as any other.

[tazelbain]

Player skill is ability to pwn newbs with little or no risk.

[Chenghiz]

Player skill is where the differential between you and your opponent is your skill at playing your class.

[damijin]

So what you're arguing for is generally a world where everyone has the exact same set of skills available so that the "best" players will win (plus or minus the zerg factor accounting for large battles).

I see.

I think the bottom line is (hard truth incoming), MMORPG players are generally unskilled compared to the gaming community as a whole. We fall somewhere below the average. Some of us have skills, but we play more than just MMOs. We might play CS a few times a week and do really well. But while we're playing MMOs for long sessions of 4+ hours, we can't expect to be skilled the entire time. Planetside was an online FPS, yes. Most would say that an FPS requires more skill than other games. But Planetside didn't actually require you to be terribly skilled. If you're not so skilled, play an anti-air MAX. Those are pretty easy to use. Or maybe you could use the flavor of the month heavy weapon (I don't know what it is, jackhammer at launch, lasher later on). These days unskilled players can even play in a giant robot (BFR) and conquer armies with their mighty certification!

But you always had that option to play an infiltrator with knife only and try to rack up some points. Or fly a mosquito against those skill-less AA MAXs.

Maybe theres a lesson to be learned there in allowing players to set their own skill levels. No?

[stray]

At the risk of sounding condescending, I have to ask anyone who lacks "player skill" why they even play video games in the first place. How, when, and why did you pick up this hobby? What exactly were you playing in the old days when just about every title, from games in the arcade to the Nintendo to the Apple II, required that you have some skill to play? What in the world were you doing when 99% of the titles released weren't following some rpg/class based paradigm (as opposed to player based)?

[Nebu]

One of the greatest misconceptions in gaming is that skill = twitch.  While twitch is a skill, it's just one of many types of gaming skills. Understanding game mechanics, developing sound strategies, utilization of abilities, timing, and communication are also skills.  This is one of the things that I enjoy about DAoC, it requires not only twitch, but strategy, communication, and awareness.  Yes, your realm rank, champion level, and master level play a part in your ability to do wel, but players of lower rank with superior strategies will usually win.  That's been the draw of the game for me for nearly 5 years.  Granted, DAoC suffers from other glaring flaws... but for mmog-based pvp it's the best available. 

[tazelbain]

... so victory will likely go to the faction with FEWER players.  Now the majority of your players are sitting around with crappy weapons and items getting harassed by a tiny group of uber-warriors.

The obvious flaw I've missed in my breathless hubris. Good show. It hadn't occurred to me that fairness and persistence are so opposed... although it's been proven again and again in the real world as well as within games. Games are fair because everybody agrees on the rules, life is unfair because the side which changes the rules wins. Try to design for both and you're fighting yourself.

Did Richard Bartle already phrase this as a law or should Kail stake his claim now?

Yes, avoiding lock out is important but I don't think it kills the idea. 

-Reward the losers at a significantly reduced rate.
-Have medicre NPCs take sides if one side can't or won't field a side.
-Have nodes spread out so it is unrealistic for one team to control all the nodes of one type.

[Kail]

Two things about this whole MMO/RTS thing that I want to say:

-Grouping players heirarchically doesn't, in my opinion, solve a whole lot.  In Real Life, it's used for organizational purposes, not because it provides tactical bonuses or something, and the organizational problems it solves in real life don't seem to be present in video games.  I've seen systems like this in a number of games, and usually, they're not terribly useful.  In Allegiance, for example, you could group players into squadrons, and say stuff like "gamma squadron, defend the base!" that sounds all exciting and dramatic and stuff, but is less effective than just grabbing all the players by the base and telling them to defend.  Plus, and this is a significant concern for me, at least, hard coding a chain of command into an MMO sounds like a recipie for clash-of-the-titans level ego wars.  So I show up to a game, and suddenly, I've got to take orders from some ten year old who thinks he's all badass because he's a Sergeant and I'm a Peon?  I do not need some power hungry kid who thinks the stripes next to his name mean something telling me what to do and exploding into temper tantrums when I tell him that he's retarded.  In most current RTS/Action games (Like Allegiance, or Natural Selection, or Savage) you've got one guy running the whole team; he's the one who tells you what to do.  Sometimes he's a dick, sometimes he's not.  By adding in more layers of organization, you increase the number of people who are ordering you around, and with that, the odds that you'll be taking orders from someone who you can't work well with.  This happens all the time in guilds and clans, where some guy somewhere up the line is being a dick and pissing on someone below him;  I'd rather not see it in pickup groups, as well.

-Strategic battle may be fun for the commander, but it's not always going to be fun for the soldier.  In most strategy games, you can have a number of guys who never see action, because they're defending for an attack that never comes, or something similar.  Likewise, as a commander, it's generally your goal to win, which means that you're going to be trying to send huge numbers of your units after small numbers of the enemy units, or aircraft against units with no anti-aircraft ability, or cloaked units against units with no detection ability, et cetera.  Would these scenarios really be fun for the players controlling the guys getting cut down with no defense?  Would they be fun for the players who are just hosing down their helpless opponents?  I've never seen a game that has balanced this well.  If you try to create a strategic game (like the average RTS), then the players are probably going to get bored.  If you try to minimize the amount of strategy (like in Savage), then the commander is probably going to get bored.  How would you control for this?

[Merusk]

At the risk of sounding condescending, I have to ask anyone who lacks "player skill" why they even play video games in the first place. How, when, and why did you pick up this hobby? What exactly were you playing in the old days when just about every title, from games in the arcade to the Nintendo to the Apple II, required that you have some skill to play? What in the world were you doing when 99% of the titles released weren't following some rpg/class based paradigm (as opposed to player based)?

As someone whose twitch skills were always mediocre, and are now sub-par as I get into my 30s:  Strategy Games, Turn-Based Games,   Adventure RPGs ( *Quest, etc.), in addition to the RPGs that were out there.   The difference wasn't that the titles didn't follow some RPG/Class based paradigm, but that you could proceed at your own pace.  You didn't have to worry about min-maxing and exploiting the newest tricks or bugs in favor of FUN and nifty tricks that were there only for "ooh" factor.

Single Player FPSes and other twitch-based or "who can build fastest" games like RTSes are still fun for me, but I detest playing them online.  More and more game devs are incorporating Multiplayer not to enhance the game experience, but to replace actual content or gameplay.  This means I HAVE to min-max and exploit or learn what the counter for the exploit-of-the-atch is to even feel like I'm getting value out of a game.  Otherwise I'm just a skill-less target for someone else's enjoyment.  (At which point I question cynicaly, how is this different from pwning an NPC? Because I can get frustarted but the computer cant?)   It's no wonder I've just about stopped buying PC games anymore, because that's just not fun for me.

[Kail]

Yes, avoiding lock out is important but I don't think it kills the idea. 

-Reward the losers at a significantly reduced rate.
-Have medicre NPCs take sides if one side can't or won't field a side.
-Have nodes spread out so it is unrealistic for one team to control all the nodes of one type.

I don't think this will work.

-Reward the losers at a significantly reduced rate.

This probably won't fix anything; it changes the rate of the game imbalance (probably slows it down), but doesn't do anything to fix it.  If winners get 100 gold and loosers get zero, then if the winner wins ten in a row, he's up a thousand gold.  If the winner gets 100 gold and the looser gets 50, then after ten wins the winner still has five hundred gold more than the looser.  Yes, the looser can buy more gear than he would be able to if he got nothing, but he's still not going to be on equal footing with the winner, and that gap is going to get bigger every time they fight.  The system still gravitates towards imbalance.  The only way to fix this is if the winner's "reward" is exactly equal to or less than that of the looser, which automatically pulls the game towards balance, but a lot of people are going to bitch about for obvious reasons ("OMG why m i beang punished when I am t3h winnar?!?! I pwn3d him, I desarv t3h ph4t l3wtz!").

-Have medicre NPCs take sides if one side can't or won't field a side.

This sounds like you're basically suggesting that we add mobs to our "World Without PvE".  Quite possibly insurmountable balance issues aside, it seems counterintuitive to design a massively multiplayer PvP only game and then throw the players into bot matches.  I admit that this probably has the best chance of fixing the problems, though.

-Have nodes spread out so it is unrealistic for one team to control all the nodes of one type.

Unless you can fix the instancing problems, then this won't fix anything.  If you've only got one group of guys on your team, then none of the instances will instantiate (is that the right phrase?) unless that group enters the instance; it would be impossible for anyone to take an instance without fighting them.  One group could defend every zone in the world against an army of infinite size.  I don't see how adding space between the instances would fix anything.