Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 21, 2017, 02:25:34 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
Donate! | Subscribe! | Shop: Amazon

***DONATION DRIVE 2 HAS BEGUN:
CLICK HERE TO BURN MONEY***
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  Game Design/Development  |  Topic: Random PvP ideas 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Random PvP ideas  (Read 34832 times)
tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #35 on: March 19, 2007, 06:36:20 PM

Can everyone win the World Series Poker everytime, no.  Can everyone win couple hands, sure.

"Me am play gods"
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 16736

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #36 on: March 19, 2007, 10:22:52 PM

Is this discussion even worth having if we're operating from the assumption that people don't play MMOGs for fun and never will?
Absolutely. We can try to decide whether PvP is the best way to turn them into customers willing to pay monthly for a long-term service...

Hm.  I was under the impression that most people here were trying to imagine a fun game they'd want to play themselves, not an unfun game they could conceivably make money from by conning someone else into playing.  I suppose that is how most commercial MMOGs actually get designed though, which explains a lot about them.   tongue

"Nice attempted blast about my "drinking".  I do enjoy a nice cuppa, but that is because I am a bon vivant of gregarious nature and cheery disposition." - Ab
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4327


Reply #37 on: March 19, 2007, 11:10:27 PM

I suppose that is how most commercial MMOGs actually get designed though, which explains a lot about them.
No argument from me. It has built an empire of shitty, unpleasant games I no longer enjoy... but merely thinking up fun games I'd like to play is, at best, an academic exercise. Anything as complex and expensive as a MMOG (like a blockbuster studio movie) is made not because it's the most enjoyable project that could be produced, but because (on paper) it promises a guaranteed return on investment. That promise may turn out to have been a lie because the project isn't actually entertaining, but if the names and numbers hadn't looked solid it wouldn't have been greenlighted at all.

We can rail about that system but we're not going to change it. If we're seriously thinking about how PvP could be changed and could change the way these games play, we'll have to keep that ugly system in mind.

“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” - Pascal
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 16736

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #38 on: March 20, 2007, 12:25:20 AM

but merely thinking up fun games I'd like to play is, at best, an academic exercise.

As opposed to what we're doing here, which is serious business, rite?

"Nice attempted blast about my "drinking".  I do enjoy a nice cuppa, but that is because I am a bon vivant of gregarious nature and cheery disposition." - Ab
Hoax
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7347

l33t kiddie


Reply #39 on: March 27, 2007, 04:11:35 PM

stuff
^This is the only worthwhile post in this thread.

The rules are an ok attempt at a pvp standard.  Here are some I take issue with.

6.  Instant travel and/or summoning have caused problems but I dont think they are inherently bad things to have in a game.

8.  I would prefer to see in-game mechanics not arbitrary caps.

9.  Depends on if you are going for "sport" pvp or "world" pvp, both are viable choices.  It is annoying that WoW ever pretended it was about world pvp but now that they have the arena season its a viable sport pvp game.

10.  I think you are way off, also stealth classes have only worked in SB.  If you want to take Xilren's advice and create layers of pvp and make one an espionage/information warfare thing, sure.  But seriously if I never see a class with stealth + huge burst damage from stealth again I will be a happy gamer.

11.  There are ways to integrate pvp and pve, as others have said but its a bitch and nobody has really come close to getting it right so far.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2007, 04:15:16 PM by Hoax »

A nation consists of its laws. A nation does not consist of its situation at a given time. If an individual's morals are situational, then that individual is without morals. If a nation's laws are situational, that nation has no laws, and soon isn't a nation.
-William Gibson
Slayerik
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4851

Victim: Sirius Maximus


Reply #40 on: April 05, 2007, 08:26:19 AM

The main issue plaguing an open PVP world is the idea that there will be rampant player killers running around with impunity.  With Permadeath there are two factors which would drive down the incidence of PKers, first the death of even one character would elicit real outrage against the player killer,

Um, that's the exact reason a lot of them do it.  See griefing.  PK'er generally don't care about their characters and it would be typical for a single PK to cause at least several normal player deaths (or lots) before any "police force" caught up to them.  Then they just create another throwaway character and repeat.

Quote
secondly killing a player killer means that that player has been effectively stopped and not simply deterred or delayed.  Suddenly the idea of police forces seems reasonable.  Players would be more likely to see the value in a police officer who could effectively eliminate criminals.  Permadeath could also mean having police would really mean something more than blues and reds playing what amounts to an RvR battle.  As long as PVP deaths carry no weight PKers have nothing counterbalancing their homicidal tendencies.

I really don't think you've thought this through.  Pk'er don't care about their characters; they are just a means to an end.  So introducing a measure which punishes people who do care about their characters, like permadeath, actually makes the ground much more fertile for Pk's, not give them a disincentive to play.  And player police has always been and will always be unworkable unless the game design is built around making it much much easier to catch and kill "reds" than be one, and I am highly dubious until shown such a system.

Most of what you wrote I agree with. The part I dont agree with is PKers not caring about their characters. You will rarely find someone that tries harder to tweak and perfect their setup then someone who will be putting their ass on the line. As much as you have described these players as basically mindless killing machines, I do believe that they sure as hell dont want to regrind a character.

Most likely they will find other PKs and find the best way to group up and kill people with a group of 4 hour old characters. PKs will find a way to minimize their own time lost/invested, but dont fool yourself into thinking they dont care about their notorious reputation or time they have spent working on skills/items for it.



Non perma death thoughts: I was thinking about some sort of real Noto system. For killing 'Reds', you earn a percentage of their points (depending how much negative rep they have). The higher your positive rep is can open up new quest lines to you from NPC sheriffs or mayors. Possibly the high end of this would have special titles/items opened up to them.  This could make anti-PK worthwhile.

My other thought is, if you become too nefarius as a PK that is when Permadeath can happen (say after 6 murders). Though having such a rating would cause you to not be able to go into certain towns, it would also open up access to 'evil' towns/areas having items that could only be obtained there. Risk/reward. With the permadeath caveat, it would also put a real damper on abusing the noto system...you really want to kill your own PK character off for good noto points/bounty?

I believe in stealing the best systems and tweaking to your own use. Take Diablo 2 loot. Add UO full loot drops on player death (PVP deaths only, PVE drops a corpse only scoopable by the character to prevent ninja looting by a 'groupmate'). Make sure characters have plenty of bank space. Players then have the choice of what gear set to take out adventuring with them. This is one of the things missing from today's games. No risk/reward, just throw on your best gear. Sure, it would suck losing a nice unique sword, but then you realize you have a very nice sword in the bank that you wanted to try anyways. Good replacement armor is reasonably priced and drops frequently in dungeons as well. A huge money sink could be very very high priced 'blessings', that allow you to die a certain number of times and not drop 1 item. Maybe make rings/necklaces soulbound.

Steal and tweak Eve's security status. 1.0 is fully town guarded insta-pop on aggression. Basically a police state. Mines have Copper.

.7 Heavily guarded towns, slightly better resources...mines have copper/some silver.

 .5 is less so, there are brutal roaming patrols that will KOS low noto characters. Roads are well guarded. .5 Monsters, dungeons, towns and resources have more options. Mines have silver. Guild Houses can be placed at .5 and below.

.3 will have occasional bounty hunter NPCs, or a passing armed Caravan occasionally. Zone guards only. Higher end monsters, dungeons, and drops. Towns have high end crafters and trainers. Mines have gold.

.1 Very rare bounty hunter NPCs. No road guards. Mines have gold/Platinum.

.0 Wild wild west. Conquerable towns. 'Evil' towns (Good noto players would be ganked). Mines have Gold/Plat/gems


Instant travel would be accomplished by high end NPC wizards, very limited in the world. Player characters could possibly spec that direction as well. I had some other ideas last night, and more to it, but the premise is, steal the good shit from many different games, add an original system or 2, and game on :)



"I have more qualifications than Jesus and earn more than this whole board put together.  My ego is huge and my modesty non-existant." -Ironwood
Alkiera
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1556

The best part of SWG was the easy account cancellation process.


Reply #41 on: April 08, 2007, 11:49:32 PM

Non perma death thoughts: I was thinking about some sort of real Noto system. For killing 'Reds', you earn a percentage of their points (depending how much negative rep they have). The higher your positive rep is can open up new quest lines to you from NPC sheriffs or mayors. Possibly the high end of this would have special titles/items opened up to them.  This could make anti-PK worthwhile.

My other thought is, if you become too nefarius as a PK that is when Permadeath can happen (say after 6 murders). Though having such a rating would cause you to not be able to go into certain towns, it would also open up access to 'evil' towns/areas having items that could only be obtained there. Risk/reward. With the permadeath caveat, it would also put a real damper on abusing the noto system...you really want to kill your own PK character off for good noto points/bounty?

One thing you might add to this is a stat that is based off how often your Noto points swing back and forth.  If you kill good people and go 'evil', great... but if you try to beat the system by then killing off some other 'bad' guys to get back up to neutral, it records this somehow, perhaps when you hit certain thresholds, so if you make a habit of killing good folks, then log on your other account with a Dread Lord on it and kill him a dozen times to fix your rep, it'll be noted and somehow flagged to your character.  Perhaps you lose Sanity or something, and after a certain amount of loss, you go nuts and the char is just unplayable, a la Call of Cthulu.

The idea being to reduce the ability to 'game' the Noto system.  Generally, you want to make a choice, and stick with it.  If you decide to change your mind, great, as long as you don't do so every week.

--
Alkiera

"[I could] become the world's preeminent MMO class action attorney.  I could be the lawyer EVEN AMBULANCE CHASERS LAUGH AT. " --Triforcer

Welcome to the internet. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used as evidence against you in a character assassination on Slashdot.
sinij
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2597


WWW
Reply #42 on: April 10, 2007, 10:09:52 AM

Quote
Take Diablo 2 loot. Add UO full loot drops on player death

BUT WAI!

This is really bad idea. You do not want to have gear-centric game with full loot simply because loss to players will be too significant. Designing good PvP game is about minimizing immediate individual consequences and maximizing group and long term effects.

Lets look at few examples, just to make sure this very important point is well understood:

1)   WoW – player dies in PvP, nothing bad happens regardless of fight’s pretext. Overall this scenario is less than ideal due to lack of consequences, you can’t hope to drive off somebody and regardless of your actions there is no effect on game world. Gear also a dominant factor in determining outcome of the fight. Your PvP will be viewed as ‘meaningless’
2)   SB – player dies in PvP, minimal gear repair penalty happens but if it’s a fight over an objective this can have very lasting and negative consequences to all involved. Problem with this system is that gear can greatly influence outcome of the fight.
3)   UO - player dies in PvP, gets looted. Again this is less than ideal situation - while there some consequences to PvP death there is no objectives to it. As a side benefit all gear tend to be equal due to full loot.


Full loot on death should not be used as a means of adding consequences to PvP deaths, instead its main purpose is to make sure everyone is on equal footing when it comes to gear, keeping mudflation in check.


To me ideal PvP mmorpg design includes full loot, but not because I think it will add consequences to death but because I want to make sure at no point it becomes item-centric. Still when you design PvP you should consider how much of a penalty PvP death would result in, under no circumstances should you spend more time recovering from PvP than you are PvPing.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2007, 10:16:31 AM by sinij »

Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.
Slayerik
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4851

Victim: Sirius Maximus


Reply #43 on: April 10, 2007, 03:28:03 PM

What Im saying is how many blue weapons drop in Diablo II? Fuckin every mini boss you kill has at least one. People could have stockpiles of those, use standard crafted armor like UO did, magic armor if you have balls (UO-esque), and stuff.

I hear what you are saying, but to me it would fit nicely together. Half the time people probably wouldnt loot 'just another blue greatsword'...but if the guy had balls and brought out his Yellow and died....tough luck for him...no huge deal because you have access to many different cool blue weapons, or standard crafted stuff.


"I have more qualifications than Jesus and earn more than this whole board put together.  My ego is huge and my modesty non-existant." -Ironwood
Arnold
Terracotta Army
Posts: 813


Reply #44 on: April 11, 2007, 04:10:35 AM

What Im saying is how many blue weapons drop in Diablo II? Fuckin every mini boss you kill has at least one. People could have stockpiles of those, use standard crafted armor like UO did, magic armor if you have balls (UO-esque), and stuff.

I hear what you are saying, but to me it would fit nicely together. Half the time people probably wouldnt loot 'just another blue greatsword'...but if the guy had balls and brought out his Yellow and died....tough luck for him...no huge deal because you have access to many different cool blue weapons, or standard crafted stuff.



What was weird in UO is that in my early days, before I was a totally PvP, I knew PvMers who had houses full of endless vanqs, and they refused too use them for fear of losing them.  It boggles the mind.  These people would use force weapons, but hoarded all the good stuf, of which they had plenty.  When I knew them  it was after statloss was introduced, and they still woould not break out the good stuff.  I hunted with them every day for half a year and I know they did not die to PKs often.

Then I slowly got into PvP and eventually had a perma-red.  I would carry the best stuff on me that I could afford, at all times, because I got attacked by everybody.  If I was able to carry a two-handed vanq and a one-handed vanq(so I could down potions while swinging) at the same time, all the better.  Many times it was power, but I did the best I could.  It was just amazing that all these people were hoarding equipment that could help them out a lot.

Then I got into the order/chaos thing, and that's mostly about being a team player.  There I tended to die so much, becauseI was playing for the team, that I went back to using GM made stuff (being red was a much more solo thing).
CharlieMopps
Terracotta Army
Posts: 837


Reply #45 on: May 27, 2007, 01:13:52 PM

What we need is a Cyberpunk MMO ala Neocron... except FUN, and oh... the engine has to work properly
Player housing is required
FPS Required
No locked targets... FF should be a danger
Full PVP but murder of a faction member results in 24hrs in jail. You can gank someone if you want, but your done for the night if you do. Maybe 1 faction could be lawless and exempt or something.
No "Levels"
Skill based progression, and the ability to change professions ala UO
No jackass Meleclasses. Who the hell thought a sword wielding human could take out a machinegun wielding robot in AO should be given a sword and told to charge a real machinegun wielding robot.
Vehicles, Aircraft, spacecraft and interstellar craft... all required from the start. I want my guild to be able to buy an interstellar cruiser... go to another planet, launch our dropship and massacre the population before stripping the world of its resources. Now THATS a raid.
No level limits on weapons. 1 character per server to prevent twinking. If a riffle is really that good, it'll cost 100Million credits. And the fact that you can change your skills anytime you want means there really isn't a reason you'd need more than 1 toon
Faction based with Several different star systems... 1 for each faction. Maybe 5-10 different factions. Basically full on PVP but raid style. You have to battle through the other systems outer defenses to get to their homeworld... so they know well in advance that you are coming. In fact, when a raid was incoming I'd love for the apposing faction to see a new star in the sky that your breaking thrusters as you pulled in-system.
Huge XP bonuses for those that defend the homeworld.
Tradeskills should be a major part of the game. The best equipment would require resources from several different worlds, requiring a full raid to capture and area, setup base and protect your mining crew... etc... Less valuable resources found in asteroid belts that are less well deffended.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2007, 01:23:31 PM by CharlieMopps »
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4327


Reply #46 on: May 27, 2007, 05:11:31 PM

FPS Required
No locked targets... FF should be a danger
[...]
No jackass Meleclasses. Who the hell thought a sword wielding human could take out a machinegun wielding robot in AO should be given a sword and told to charge a real machinegun wielding robot.
Until we can eliminate latency, continue to expect Meleclasses and locked targets. Even when faked such that once somebody is in your "targeting reticle" you have them "targeted", you're still going to wind up with the same bizzare spacetime warping LOS issues that plague any high ping FPS. Go play a little Planetside or GunZ The Duel for examples galore. Note how heavily they limit the number of players in their instanced fights and how strenuously they police latency.

Melee is popular in MMOGs because fighting at zero range blurs a lot of these problems. It evades the LOS issue, for example. Sadly, as GunZ also makes obvious, without a locked target it's still hard to hit somebody with a high relative ping. Melee will also specifically stand for punching, slashing, and stabbing rather than acrobatic sweeps and throws. For similar reasons to why Bungie removed multiplayer from Oni seven years ago... we're not going to see intuitive twitch combat show up in a Massively MOG any time soon.

[edit]
Actually, it's even worse than GunZ or Planetside will lead you believe because they are only persistant worlds in the loosest sense... there are almost no consequences to death and very little character development. Your mention of player housing and talk of in-faction murder consequences and friendly fire leads me to believe you want death to be important. To simulate whatever inconvenienences you want death to have, stop playing for five to ten minutes every time you die in Planetside or GunZ... or Team Fortress or Unreal: Tournament or whatever FPS you enjoy.
[/edit]
« Last Edit: May 27, 2007, 05:30:52 PM by pxib »

“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” - Pascal
bhodi
Moderator
Posts: 6817

No lie.


Reply #47 on: May 27, 2007, 06:37:09 PM

Honestly, planetside is pretty good. There are occasional oddities but they are manageable. I think there are 4 things you need to really pull it off:

1. Client side hit detection but non-predictive projectile spawning. This is the only way you can really go; it opens your client up to hacking and exploiting (sending you hit packets), but the trade offs are huge. If you go with projectile over hitscan weapons, which is suggested, you will get some weird issues about bullets appearing where you WERE in the game world and travel to where you were aiming at the time. This isn't horribly debilitating and games have been doing it for years, including planetside, to good effect. #4 also helps with this.

2. Don't have a changeable/deformable world or you will start getting into some really weird causality issues; make it so it's player versus player with the world being immutable obstacles only.

3. Make combat long enough so that the opening volley of a laggy player won't kill you. You don't want someone to be able to run around a corner and completely unload and actually kill you before you even see him and respond.

4. Make player run speed fairly slow. This is to help with the 'bullets from the void' issue you'd see in #1 so that you can't shoot yourself in the back, and it also helps with #3 by making combat and positioning slower and thus combat a bit longer.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2007, 06:46:32 PM by bhodi »
Xerapis
Contributor
Posts: 1392


Reply #48 on: May 29, 2007, 05:08:18 AM

Just had to throw this thought out there...

Why is it in games, the best defended areas have the worst resources?  Shouldn't it be the exact opposite?

..I want to see gamma rays. I want to hear x-rays. I want to...smell dark matter...and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me...
sinij
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2597


WWW
Reply #49 on: March 03, 2009, 06:33:23 PM

I want to run Darkfall through this list, I think they got a lot of these points right. Anyone with more first-hand expirience can do point-by-point comparison?

Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.
DLRiley
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1982


Reply #50 on: March 10, 2009, 08:47:48 AM

Just had to throw this thought out there...

Why is it in games, the best defended areas have the worst resources?  Shouldn't it be the exact opposite?

In order for those games to have a functioning pvp system, the idea is to entice the pve'ers into leaving their well defended towns/cities, and go into the undefended areas of the game in order for the so called pvp'ers to kill them. Sheep and wolves dynamic. If there are no reasons for the sheep to wonder, the wolves can't hunt. If the wolves can't kill sheep they will be forced to kill each other, which of course means a drastic decrease in the amount of wolves. This is what many of those so called pvp'ers call a reason to fight. You generally want a constant influx of players hoping to score it big do to their being a large amount of resources/loot in order for the "pvp'ers" to have a guaranteed 'match'. It's really players vs pve'ers and not player vs player, though very few people make that distinction.

I generally given up on the notion that designing a game around open world pvp doesn't make in garbage. Even EVE had to stack the odds in favor of the sheep several times over, to insure that their playerbase doesn't self cannibalize itself at break neck pace. Maybe its because I'm not the target demographic, neither enjoyed UO or 13 or a someone with a lot of free time on my hand and with very little human contact to spend it with, or a person who generally sucks at 99% of any real pvp game. If "UO BUT WITH a TWiSt11" is the best the hardcore crowd have to offer, i'm going to wait for the answer to this one question "why should someone spend millions developing your game 'done right' when there are such things as pvp servers."
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4327


Reply #51 on: March 22, 2009, 07:22:53 PM

Random idea: Generic framework for instanced, two-tier open PvP system.

Instanced battlefield objectives, populated by a set of infinitely respawning NPC defenders. Guilds or even PUGs can attack these, claim them, and use whatever advantages they have. Guilds become progressively more likely to have their claimed objectives randomly attacked (rather than an NPC objective) based on how many objectives they control and how many players they currently have online... players can also choose to re-attack claimed objectives they have recently encountered, or from those belonging to guilds with which they are at war.

These objectives could even have some sort of "tech tree", making it impossible to encounter higher level of objective until your guild or group controls some number (or specific kinds) of lower level objectives. Lower objectives woudl be easy to capture and hard to hold, higher level objectives would be progressively slanted towards the defensive... but lose some defensive advantage as more of the lower level objectives which support them are captured.

Objectives would also contain resources for the crafting of loot, much of which could theoretically be gathered without engaging the NPCs.

The two tiers:

Trash: Those defensive NPCs can be controlled by the defending players... both in general (by fine-tuning the likelyhood of particular sorts of NPCs spawning, and what crappy NPC tactics they would employ) and by specifically creating an controlling individuals (up to the maximum number allowed by the objective). They respawn practically instantaneously, FPS style, and though they can dish out capable damage they have very little ability to absorb it and die quickly. Attacking players can also produce trash (up to the maximum number allowed by the objective) who spawn or respawn at some specific distance from attacking heros, or at a random point around the instance perimeter.

Heros: These are the PCs. They chew through any trash that catches their attention and must be ganged up upon to be killed thereby. Attackers are allowed to have one more hero than defenders do, up to the maximum allowed each by the objective. Heros also have "travel time", a LONG (multiple minutes) period during which they may not respawn, during which the player will be controlling trash. If, after a combat timer has elapsed, the defender has more spawned heros than the attacker.. defense wins.

Attackers have specific, varied tasks they must complete to gain victory in objectives. Each completed task will slightly increase the combat timer.

“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” - Pascal
sinij
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2597


WWW
Reply #52 on: March 23, 2009, 03:22:51 PM

Very interesting pxib. This would work something like instanced dungeon that you could conquer, build up and later contest.

Initial conquest can be basic "ready check" - is your group/guild ready to enter PvP competition phase? If you can't defeat Trash/Boss, then no you are not ready. Second stage will be build-up, something to the effect of Dungeon Master. You plan defenses, choke points and so on. Third stage - entering "arena" with your instanced dungeon. Your team get rated and you enter competition against equally-rated opponents. They attack your dungeon, then you attack theirs and based on the outcome move up or down the ladder.

Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.
Koyasha
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1362


Reply #53 on: March 23, 2009, 05:12:57 PM

Heros also have "travel time", a LONG (multiple minutes) period during which they may not respawn, during which the player will be controlling trash.
That part is the most interesting to me, and something I'm surprised has never to my knowledge been done.  Either you spend a long time out of combat or you're instantly returned to combat, but I have never seen a game where when you lose, you get a secondary role to perform for the time it takes your 'main character' to be ready to return to the fight.  Delaying the loser's return to the fight is vital in order to make a fight winnable by attrition, but giving the loser something to do which still contributes, albeit to a smaller degree, is an excellent way to keep it interesting when someone dies and is 'waiting for res'.

-Do you honestly think that we believe ourselves evil? My friend, we seek only good. It's just that our definitions don't quite match.-
Ailanreanter, Arcanaloth
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4327


Reply #54 on: March 23, 2009, 08:51:22 PM

Delaying the loser's return to the fight is vital in order to make a fight winnable by attrition...
...but travel time sucks.
 
That was one half of the inspiration for the whole mess. Plus heros can get their jollies insta-gibbing groups of other players, without those gibs being overly upset about it... because they're congratulating themselves on putting off the assault the few moments required to let their side get its heroes back. It's a common dynamic in MMOG PvP that I'd like to see more effectively codified.

The other half was a desire to get away from the two conventional forms of attack/defense: The strictly instanced sport vs. the open world war. Planetside and Dark Age of Camelot eventually seem meaningless because any progress disappears as soon as the defenders get bored and leave... but WoW's battlegrounds are meaninglessness from word go. Capturable instanced objectives are "permanent", but the barrier to entry can be more effectively policed. Then with easy access to trash but limited access to heros, the side that isn't "ready" won't be totally overwhelmed unless they're trying to hold more than they can control.

“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” - Pascal
Michael
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1


Reply #55 on: May 05, 2009, 04:24:05 PM

Quote
Full loot on death should not be used as a means of adding consequences to PvP deaths, instead its main purpose is to make sure everyone is on equal footing when it comes to gear, keeping mudflation in check.
Why you would ever think that full loot on death would keep mudflation in check boggles the mind. Transferring items from one person to another changes nothing. As long as you have new items coming into the economy from resources and mobs, you will have mudflation problem. Now if you destroyed all (or most) items on death (which is what EVE does), then that might keep mudflation in check.

As an ex-anti-PK from UO, when some of the PK keeps decayed, I threw in the towel and gave up. Why? Inside those keeps were chests so full of gear, we would not even pick any of it up. I lost count of it all. I realized I could kill PKs from dawn to dusk and not even make a dent in their hoard as they could farm it right back. (Plus, playing defense in a world where everyone can pretty much teleport anywhere is another exercise in frustration.)
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 04:46:12 PM by Michael »
sinij
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2597


WWW
Reply #56 on: May 17, 2009, 04:35:19 PM

Transferring items from one person to another changes nothing.

Supply and demand disagrees. UO's problem was duping, not vanquishing weapons.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2009, 04:36:51 PM by sinij »

Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.
chargerrich
Terracotta Army
Posts: 342


Reply #57 on: May 20, 2009, 08:25:25 AM

There has to be an audience for a game that can be a forgiving as WoW and as brutal as say old UO in terms of PvP.

I posted an idea in an old thread long ago that outlined a system by which the game would support a mechanic that would track some form of PvP metric (via open world PvP, BGs, or PvP related quests. Hope no one minds a revised repost of that since it is buried.  Oh ho ho ho. Reallllly?

Once that metric was hit, the entire server population would be presented upon logging into the game a form of server vote for war or peace. This vote would last a predetermined time, something on the order of a few days, only allowing a single vote per account. Then based on that vote, the whole server would be thrown into war or peace would resume.

Being in either state would even award some form of associated bonuses, for example:

War - You could add a mechanic by which PVP would actually net XP by which to level or award some form of tokens (like emblems in Wow) as currency
Peace - You could increase PVE/Quest XP increased by X% or add more money/better loot drops

Once War is established, then it will continue until one side racks up more "points" which could consist of several activities including but not limited to:
* PvP Quests
* PvP Kills
* Buildings destroyed
* Objectives taken
* Territories taken
* Battlegrounds won

The winning side of the War would be granted a series of bonuses that could consist of:

* XP
* PvP Experience/Honor
* Gold
* Achievements/Appearance only gear

If Peace is established PvP can only be performed in PvP areas (ala wow) until the metric is hit again (which should be set high enough that several days or even a week will pass regardless of activity before a new vote for war is presented.

Something like this will allow the server to determine the game mechanics and it would be rather cool to have servers in different states.



tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #58 on: May 20, 2009, 01:49:18 PM

Straight up voting would fail.  Imagine if you implement this in EvE, the PvE masses would vote down War every time.  It wouldn't even be close especially with PvE rewards for Peace.

Additionally what do players who are only interested in War do during Peace, and vies versa?   It would seem you are asking them to log out during the time the voting doesn't favor them.

"Me am play gods"
ezrast
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1936


WWW
Reply #59 on: May 20, 2009, 03:46:02 PM

Yeah, it seems like you're trying to address some perceived problem with PvP rulesets except I have no idea what that problem is. Assuming your game has multiple servers, how is having a PvP server for PvPers and a PvE server for PvEers any worse than having a single schizophrenic server type?

And wouldn't the community naturally divide itself into war-all-the-time and peace-all-the-time servers anyway?
chargerrich
Terracotta Army
Posts: 342


Reply #60 on: May 21, 2009, 08:05:18 AM

Straight up voting would fail.  Imagine if you implement this in EvE, the PvE masses would vote down War every time.  It wouldn't even be close especially with PvE rewards for Peace.

Additionally what do players who are only interested in War do during Peace, and vies versa?   It would seem you are asking them to log out during the time the voting doesn't favor them.

Peace mode would allow PvP in contested areas, ala WoW in its current state on PvP servers so there would be plenty of PvP still. However if a War state was declared then all hell breaks loose, towns can be taken, no safe zones, etc.

At its most peaceful state the PvP would be on par with most "PvP" servers in say WAR or WOW
gryeyes
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2215


Reply #61 on: May 21, 2009, 10:39:22 PM

Some of the most fun ive had playing a game of any genre was a FFA pvp mud. Gear could confer an almost insurmountable advantage if it was stacked properly. Truly unique items had to be "fed" frags to be retained by the wielder. If they were not used after a duration of time they poofed back to the mob they were tagged to.  But it created an entirely self contained ecosystem of content. You never ran out of content because the gear circulated around the playerbase. A complete noob could luck out and get a set of gear they would otherwise have no chance to attain. And even the strongest character could easily lose everything.

Reacquiring gear was not very difficult lots of the moderate powered stuff could be attained by a single person or duo. The top tier stuff required a fairly sizeable group to get. No levels attached to gear any level character could use anything but there was hardcaps on stats depending on level. After level 50 you advanced in level through a potion tagged to a certain zone. Level 51 required this place and so fourth. You could lose levels which actually helped keep some of the content active.

Frags were divided between everyone in the killers group with strict group caps to prevent zerging. Lots of AoE effects that would nuke any player regardless of race not in the casters group, that kind of restricted a random person trying to vulture in on a corpse or kill. I am not certain if this can be recreated with a modern MMO playerbase (so many people) but i will be all over an EVE style game with humanoid avatars running around. Able to use so much more of your resources on refining your game when you dont have to spew out a constant stream of PVE content. Maybe even afford a decent GM to player ratio to enforce rules and such. Lets hope WoD offers something along these lines.
DLRiley
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1982


Reply #62 on: May 22, 2009, 08:57:41 AM

Good to know that while you kids were busy buttfucking each other in muds I was busy putting bullets in people heads. So is there any pvp ideas for the kids who didn't spend there early years playing the geekiest form of gaming known to man or at the very least not nostalgic about doing so?
Sheepherder
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5188


Reply #63 on: May 22, 2009, 12:26:45 PM

Does playing a P&P RPG count? awesome, for real  I'm curious as to how well a pvp game built on the premise of political infighting (assassination, gang warfare, industrial sabotage) rather than global conflict and open world gank squads (Warcraft, Warhammer, DAoC, Darkfall, Conan) would work.

Basic Premises:

  • Periphery "safe" zones are for lowbies
  • The big city hub(s) are for endgame (a single massive one would be best, but that might create congestion issues)
  • Crime / Guard response similar to Grand Theft Auto or Assassin's Creed (breaks up pvp action as it escalates, encourages quick raids)
  • The major player-created guilds/factions/houses are allowed to purchase large housing in the city, lesser guilds get lesser housing in the city and large housing in the hinterlands
  • Guilds can buy up properties and businesses within their area of influence, which handle crafting (any player-performed crafting would be to create high-quality stuff)
  • Businesses create NPC's which deliver excess goods + money to their owners, they pay protection money if they fall into the "turf" of another faction
  • Properties/businesses can be targets for theft/extortion/burglary above by a party they are not owned by and not paying for protection
  • Formal systems for selling your own guild's info to others (what's getting raided next, for example), to encourage intrafaction drama
  • Limits on /whisper type chat, which along with information trading encourage hideouts and clubhouses (and infiltration efforts by opponents)
  • Fast travel nearly everywhere. (carriages/taxi's run routes along the city coordinated so that every major point has one stopping every ~30 seconds, when a person uses fast travel they are instantly ported into the carriage/taxi next to arrive at that point)

Yeah, it's pretty Eve-style hardcore with a dash of Grand Theft Auto.  Works best in a medieval or modern setting, may work (with modifications) as a White Wolf / World of Darkness type game.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 12:28:38 PM by Sheepherder »
DLRiley
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1982


Reply #64 on: May 22, 2009, 02:00:43 PM

Mud's are the lowest of the low as far as geekdom is concerned, but P&P RPG's? Damn you must have been stuffed head first in a few lockers when you was a kid.

As far as the idea, I'm getting pretty sure that simulating gang/turf warfare isn't as fun as shooting people in the head, though that's just my personal preference. You neglected to mention a pve portion of the game which you will most likely need otherwise your going to head into never before seen problems that were quite obvious if you stepped into the shoes of the player. And your idea will work relatively decently the further you get away from fire balls and two edged swords.
tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #65 on: May 22, 2009, 02:08:12 PM

You really are an asshole.  Posting in the Game Design thread like its a Politics thread is a cry for attention.  So there, you have your attention.  Now can you shut up until you have something to add?
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 02:12:43 PM by tazelbain »

"Me am play gods"
DLRiley
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1982


Reply #66 on: May 22, 2009, 02:20:25 PM

You really are an asshole.  Posting in the Game Design thread like its a Politics thread is a cry for attention.  So there, you have your attention.  Now can you shut up until you have something to add?

Geez does randomly calling people assholes come from personal experience taking it in that area? Or are you mad that I didn't find the time before internet consoles enjoyable. Or is it both  DRILLING AND MANLINESS
Sheepherder
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5188


Reply #67 on: May 22, 2009, 03:11:42 PM

Mud's are the lowest of the low as far as geekdom is concerned, but P&P RPG's? Damn you must have been stuffed head first in a few lockers when you was a kid.

There were a shitton of stoners, punks, and emo kids at my school who played D&D with the completely socially incapable, and a friend got a Vampire: the Masquerade manual off of a metalhead and conned me into GM'ing it.  He really should have gotten the Hunter supplement, because fuck vampires.  Also, fuck retarded dice rolling systems, no I'm not going to ask people to LARP just because you couldn't design a system that doesn't require multiple dice rolls White Wolf, fuck off.

Quote
As far as the idea, I'm getting pretty sure that simulating gang/turf warfare isn't as fun as shooting people in the head, though that's just my personal preference. You neglected to mention a pve portion of the game which you will most likely need otherwise your going to head into never before seen problems that were quite obvious if you stepped into the shoes of the player. And your idea will work relatively decently the further you get away from fire balls and two edged swords.

Shooting in the head is hard to do on an internet connection, there's a reason shooters are usually small-scale.  Likewise, I have the most terrible internet connection known to man, so I tend to think bandwidth a lot when cultivating my neckbeard, which usually means WoW-style combat.  In the same vein, double-edged swords would be fine, though spells would be a bit of an immersion breaker.

PvE could mostly be tacked on as a supplement to PvP with assassinate this councilman / judge / guard captain / witness type missions (note: also needs formal system for mercenaries and contract killers) (EDIT: systems of [fines / imprisonment] for characters caught after crimes would make for interesting PvE encounters involving prison breaks or sabotaging justice and would encourage alts).  Unless you mean DIKU-style PvE and loot, which can mostly fuck right off because catering too heavily to that sort of shit killed Warhammer.  However, for that particular fix you could have [rebels / bandits] hiding in an instanced [cave / dungeon / mile-fort / camp] out in the countryside, or alternatively in portions of the [sewers / catacombs] under the city.

And speaking of neckbeards, enjoy:



(Courtesy of Squirrel of the Very Hairy Man Guild, best Guild Master ever)

EDIT: The T-shirt image is a tad big, check out the webpage, it's pretty awesome.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 03:43:22 PM by Sheepherder »
gryeyes
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2215


Reply #68 on: May 22, 2009, 11:56:48 PM

Good to know that while you kids were busy buttfucking each other in muds I was busy putting bullets in people heads. So is there any pvp ideas for the kids who didn't spend there early years playing the geekiest form of gaming known to man or at the very least not nostalgic about doing so?

 swamp poop
sinij
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2597


WWW
Reply #69 on: May 25, 2009, 05:08:19 PM

DLRiley, nobody cares about you or your phony war. Go EMO about it in politics.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2009, 05:10:39 PM by sinij »

Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  Game Design/Development  |  Topic: Random PvP ideas  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC