Now if you get slapped in jail and you're account is locked to that character it makes a difference. Even if you have more then one account you still can't kill or face the same treatment. It also makes the community want to be more involved. Its tough getting motivated to protect those who can't if the perps are right back over and over and over. That's why I support a system of locking players up who kill outside of the desired bounds.
To me that has always seemed like the most effective solution to this 'problem'. Unfortunately there are very few PvPers who are hardcore enough to want to play under that kind of system.
If the only people who don't play are the people who aren't going to follow the rules with the spirit of the game in mind, wouldn't that mean the method was successful?
Not if it drives away most players and doom the game.
Now if you get slapped in jail and you're account is locked to that character it makes a difference. Even if you have more then one account you still can't kill or face the same treatment. It also makes the community want to be more involved. Its tough getting motivated to protect those who can't if the perps are right back over and over and over. That's why I support a system of locking players up who kill outside of the desired bounds.
To me that has always seemed like the most effective solution to this 'problem'. Unfortunately there are very few PvPers who are hardcore enough to want to play under that kind of system.
I know this has been asked a million times before but if you have to enforce such harsh punishments, why allow PK in the first place?
Because we want player choice. In a FFAPVP game without a penalty that holds behavior accountable bad behavior becomes out of balance. You get a world with a ton of wolves with little sheep. Wolves should be a vast minority.
Now if you get slapped in jail and you're account is locked to that character it makes a difference. Even if you have more then one account you still can't kill or face the same treatment. It also makes the community want to be more involved. Its tough getting motivated to protect those who can't if the perps are right back over and over and over. That's why I support a system of locking players up who kill outside of the desired bounds.
To me that has always seemed like the most effective solution to this 'problem'. Unfortunately there are very few PvPers who are hardcore enough to want to play under that kind of system.
I know this has been asked a million times before but if you have to enforce such harsh punishments, why allow PK in the first place?
Because we want player choice. In a FFAPVP game without a penalty that holds behavior accountable bad behavior becomes out of balance. You get a world with a ton of wolves with little sheep. Wolves should be a vast minority.
But what is being offered up is ways to punish the player, not the character, for taking part in that aspect of gameplay. These threads are all the same - a quest for a revenge system against other players. Nothing presented so far adds any value to the PVP gameplay.
You're not asking for player choice. You are, in your own words, looking to penalize or punish other players.
"Wolves should be a vast minority" ...in an FFA PVP game? Can be, yes. Depends on the design. Should be? That's some really odd design decisions right there. At that point, why make it FFA PVP?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You could have NPC guards or NPC bounty hunters of varying skill roam the lands, searching for PKs, if you want to create a sense of danger without a bounty system being exploitable.
In Puzzle PIrates, if PVPers are attacking too many players that are less skilled than they are, the Black Ship sails out and kicks their asses. Maybe more games need something like that.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Because we want player choice. In a FFAPVP game without a penalty that holds behavior accountable bad behavior becomes out of balance. You get a world with a ton of wolves with little sheep. Wolves should be a vast minority.
But what is being offered up is ways to punish the player, not the character, for taking part in that aspect of gameplay. These threads are all the same - a quest for a revenge system against other players. Nothing presented so far adds any value to the PVP gameplay.
You're not asking for player choice. You are, in your own words, looking to penalize or punish other players.
"Wolves should be a vast minority" ...in an FFA PVP game? Can be, yes. Depends on the design. Should be? That's some really odd design decisions right there. At that point, why make it FFA PVP?
I agree with you there. But the thing that in many FFA PvP games you actually can earn more with a lot less risk by killing and looting a bunch of noobs than actually doing something hard or risky.
Risk Vs reward is the most important factor to make a game fun, and the majority of players play the way that is most rewarding.
Actually punishing players should be a last step you take when everything else have failed, not your first choice. Try rewarding players more for harder stuff like actually defeating hard opponents instead of easy ones. And if that means that you can't loot everything from the noobs you gank then fine.
There will always be a few bad apples who kill people just to annoy them but in many games that is the easiest way to become rich and that is just plain wrong. First you need to stop reward players for playing a certain way instead of punish them for playing the way you also rewards them most for.
It makes zero sense to have a PvP system in place where you are going to punish anybody for engaging in it.. pk or otherwise. You may as well not have that option at all, if you are going to try and make it as unattractive as humanly possible.
It makes zero sense to have a PvP system in place where you are going to punish anybody for engaging in it.. pk or otherwise. You may as not have that option at all, if you are going to try and make it as unattractive as humanly possible.
Am i the only one seeing the stupidity of it?
CoD is that way >>>>
You need to have risk/reward balanced because any gameplay other than PKing will get overwhelmed by a pack of PKs standing 2 feet outside of protected zones.
Again, it is great to have these ideas, and they work in games like CoD.. but we have already had UO as the great social experiment and they had to quickly start punishing PK ( stat loss) to even get things remotely under control. Without stat-loss, the game would have died very fast where you had a minority of players just feeding on sheep, and the sheep were quitting rapidly. You had most new players quitting very quickly because any gameplay that was advertised, or anything that sounded amazing was never seen by those players. They stepped out of town, and they were dead before they could even see who did it. Not a lot of people make it past their first month.
It makes zero sense to have a PvP system in place where you are going to punish anybody for engaging in it.. pk or otherwise. You may as not have that option at all, if you are going to try and make it as unattractive as humanly possible.
Am i the only one seeing the stupidity of it?
CoD is that way >>>>
You need to have risk/reward balanced because any gameplay other than PKing will get overwhelmed by a pack of PKs standing 2 feet outside of protected zones.
Again, it is great to have these ideas, and they work in games like CoD.. but we have already had UO as the great social experiment and they had to quickly start punishing PK ( stat loss) to even get things remotely under control. Without stat-loss, the game would have died very fast where you had a minority of players just feeding on sheep, and the sheep were quitting rapidly. You had most new players quitting very quickly because any gameplay that was advertised, or anything that sounded amazing was never seen by those players. They stepped out of town, and they were dead before they could even see who did it. Not a lot of people make it past their first month.
"CoD is that way" ... A very telling comment that is.
CoD works. You are trying to implement something that has never worked very well. Not only that but today's players are much more likely to exploit any weakness in it and shred the whole system. These are not the same players that were present in ye old days of UO.
Risk vs reward is an easy concept to latch on to because it is simple and easy to understand and it is easy thing to point towards. Much harder would be to design a rewarding and challenging gameplay without the need harsh punishments looming over you in order to feel something, anything.
Atleast good gameplay is enjoyed by everyone. Risk vs reward only applies to people with tendencies toward gambling. And since you haven't really addressed the issue how easy it is to PK, we can assume the odds of a PKer to fail is fairly low - as it has always been. The odds are still stacked in PKer's favor even though the punishment is severe.
A smart PKer might hardly ever have to suffer the consequences of his/her playstyle. All you need to do, is to pick your battles and be moderately good in a fight. You should never engage in something you might lose -And why should you? The penalties are insanely high if you lose.
High risk will only serve to make the fights even more one-sided, because players are cowards, and coward are not going to engage in a fight they might lose.
So I say this again in another way: How about turning your attention away from punishment to increasing the chances of the victim, hmm? After all if you can make the victim's chances of winning good, he/she might actually enjoy the experience, and if you would keep the penalties to a minimum people would engage in good PvP more frequently.
By staring at risk vs reward and focusing only on the punishment aspect of it, I feel you are doing everything wrong and you are not learning from past mistakes. My question is, are you in it to repeat what UO did, or are you trying to do something better?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
It makes zero sense to have a PvP system in place where you are going to punish anybody for engaging in it.. pk or otherwise. You may as not have that option at all, if you are going to try and make it as unattractive as humanly possible.
Am i the only one seeing the stupidity of it?
CoD is that way >>>>
You need to have risk/reward balanced because any gameplay other than PKing will get overwhelmed by a pack of PKs standing 2 feet outside of protected zones.
Again, it is great to have these ideas, and they work in games like CoD.. but we have already had UO as the great social experiment and they had to quickly start punishing PK ( stat loss) to even get things remotely under control. Without stat-loss, the game would have died very fast where you had a minority of players just feeding on sheep, and the sheep were quitting rapidly. You had most new players quitting very quickly because any gameplay that was advertised, or anything that sounded amazing was never seen by those players. They stepped out of town, and they were dead before they could even see who did it. Not a lot of people make it past their first month.
Truth is.. he does have a point. Your PK system may work out.
But the overall game design is not attractive for pvp players without anything else but PKing, which most pvp players don't prefer anyway. Plus a possible additional burden on a lot of pve players, which would prefer don't to bother with PvP at all.
With other words.. nor PvP player neither pure PvE player will like that system.. it is just for a minority of gamers overall.. Those pve players, which like some danger.. and those PvPs(lets call them rp pvpers), which actually like to play a murderer but nothing else.
Now if you get slapped in jail and you're account is locked to that character it makes a difference. Even if you have more then one account you still can't kill or face the same treatment. It also makes the community want to be more involved. Its tough getting motivated to protect those who can't if the perps are right back over and over and over. That's why I support a system of locking players up who kill outside of the desired bounds.
To me that has always seemed like the most effective solution to this 'problem'. Unfortunately there are very few PvPers who are hardcore enough to want to play under that kind of system.
I know this has been asked a million times before but if you have to enforce such harsh punishments, why allow PK in the first place?
Because we want player choice. In a FFAPVP game without a penalty that holds behavior accountable bad behavior becomes out of balance. You get a world with a ton of wolves with little sheep. Wolves should be a vast minority.
But what is being offered up is ways to punish the player, not the character, for taking part in that aspect of gameplay. These threads are all the same - a quest for a revenge system against other players. Nothing presented so far adds any value to the PVP gameplay.
You're not asking for player choice. You are, in your own words, looking to penalize or punish other players.
"Wolves should be a vast minority" ...in an FFA PVP game? Can be, yes. Depends on the design. Should be? That's some really odd design decisions right there. At that point, why make it FFA PVP?
It is still about player choice. The consequence of player choices doesn't mean the choice is not there. If I want to be a bandit then I can be bandit. Imprisonment is meant to counter banditry with time taken from the player just as robbing a player of 4 hours of mining is done by the bandit. This also allows you to have game focused on group vs. group combat but still have individual conflict.
And I'm not out for some sort of revenge. I was the random PK in UO. UO is the ultimate standard experiment for player interactions. Free killing without punishment leads to wolves over running everything. You don't want consquences only be paid by the victims and those playing normal. While those committing the crimes generally pay nothing.
I think most of you are wrong. The reason? You never played a real PvP oriented MMORPG. And yes in PvE solo games PK is plague, because they are PvE solo games. Think about PvP in historical therms - in medieval times, if you was not a part of one group, probably this group would kill you. In fact nothing changed in modern times, now we have lawyers who can ruin the life of our opponents. The act is changing, but the reason stays. In games all is simpler. You just fight vs digitally created characters, no matter mobs or players. So the system is quit modern - nobody have been killed at the end.
What is the reason for PK? Rarely it is insulting from other players. Mostly it is the same reason you kill millions of mobs, because deep in your self you are an animal, and even more, you are a social animal, so you want to dominate over other animals in your group. Maybe you deny it, but it is a fact. In modern times the acts of our animal instincts are often called heroism. To be brave, to be honest, to care about others, to win vs others - all are acts of our animal instincts. To be coward, to lie, to be defeatist - all are acts of our humanity. Animals are not cruel or evil in the wild, but many humans are. Don't get me wrong, it is not good to act like an animal or bad to act like a human, just people are complicated. So PKing in games is not something bad, done by evil people. Often it is an act of boredom, because there is nothing else to do in the game.
In P2P games PvP is important part of the game play. In Lineage 2 before GoD Pk was not act of domination but act of competition. The main reason for PK was fight for spots. After GoD the dev made the PK penalty very high, so most players created special high level characters for PK, because if you become red ones you stay red. And PK became plague.
So stop to think about PK like some act of cruelty and insulting, and start to think for it like act of competition. And you will see that reasons for mass PK are implemented in games, and can be fixed. I never played boring games, so I never PK except for farming spot and raid Bosses, which is the same in fact. If you can PvP freely, fight in guild wars, trade, make politics, craft creatively, and etc., you will PK only if it is rewarding.
You are 100% but the problem really is that in most games the PK part that annoys people is when someone who have zero chance of loosing kills and loots a bunch of noobs.
That is not competition at all, it is just meaningless slaughter, or in some games the easiest way to become rich with close to zero risk.
And yeah, I seen plenty of it myself, while I never played Lineage 2 I played the first game.
First of all you need to take out the rewards for killing someone helpless, or you need to make it so people aren't totally helpless like games like CoD have. That do mean that you can't have a huge difference between a new player and a vet but that is the cost of fun PvP.
Come on, all fun PvP is when you fight someone on close to equal terms and win because you play better, not when you kill some poor noob for the zillionth time anyways.
Having noobs zones were you can't PvP or punishing people who do is just putting a band aid on, it is not enough and it wont work.
Also, you need mechanics that work similar for both PvE and PvP if you want both to be equally fun. That either takes away taunts and other tanking mechanics, or makes them actually work on other players as well as mobs or the combat will suck in PvP.
Very nice! I like the concepts, and as another fellow MMORPG.com forums user developing mmo documentation as well, I would like to help you point out just a few things.
~I think giving the coordinates to the home shouldn't happen unless it is discovered by a random non-red npc or player.
~The chat or world announcements may become overwhelming, what if a (excuse me if I misunderstood something of what you wrote) faction war happens or a 'militia of murderers' bands together and starts mass murdering people. That would be insane in chat, maybe bulletins, or horns in the town can signify it rather than a large banner of text or voicing it.
That's all I can really think of for now, good luck in producing this or putting together the notes, good to see others want to make good mmo's as well!
Never fear, your dream MMO will be here.... just give me a decade or two to finely hone my Game development and design abilities as well as start a Game Design Studio. Thank you for your patience.
I think most of you are wrong. The reason? You never played a real PvP oriented MMORPG. And yes in PvE solo games PK is plague, because they are PvE solo games. Think about PvP in historical therms - in medieval times, if you was not a part of one group, probably this group would kill you. In fact nothing changed in modern times, now we have lawyers who can ruin the life of our opponents. The act is changing, but the reason stays. In games all is simpler. You just fight vs digitally created characters, no matter mobs or players. So the system is quit modern - nobody have been killed at the end.
What is the reason for PK? Rarely it is insulting from other players. Mostly it is the same reason you kill millions of mobs, because deep in your self you are an animal, and even more, you are a social animal, so you want to dominate over other animals in your group. Maybe you deny it, but it is a fact. In modern times the acts of our animal instincts are often called heroism. To be brave, to be honest, to care about others, to win vs others - all are acts of our animal instincts. To be coward, to lie, to be defeatist - all are acts of our humanity. Animals are not cruel or evil in the wild, but many humans are. Don't get me wrong, it is not good to act like an animal or bad to act like a human, just people are complicated. So PKing in games is not something bad, done by evil people. Often it is an act of boredom, because there is nothing else to do in the game.
In P2P games PvP is important part of the game play. In Lineage 2 before GoD Pk was not act of domination but act of competition. The main reason for PK was fight for spots. After GoD the dev made the PK penalty very high, so most players created special high level characters for PK, because if you become red ones you stay red. And PK became plague.
So stop to think about PK like some act of cruelty and insulting, and start to think for it like act of competition. And you will see that reasons for mass PK are implemented in games, and can be fixed. I never played boring games, so I never PK except for farming spot and raid Bosses, which is the same in fact. If you can PvP freely, fight in guild wars, trade, make politics, craft creatively, and etc., you will PK only if it is rewarding.
You are 100% but the problem really is that in most games the PK part that annoys people is when someone who have zero chance of loosing kills and loots a bunch of noobs.
That is not competition at all, it is just meaningless slaughter, or in some games the easiest way to become rich with close to zero risk.
And yeah, I seen plenty of it myself, while I never played Lineage 2 I played the first game.
First of all you need to take out the rewards for killing someone helpless, or you need to make it so people aren't totally helpless like games like CoD have. That do mean that you can't have a huge difference between a new player and a vet but that is the cost of fun PvP.
Come on, all fun PvP is when you fight someone on close to equal terms and win because you play better, not when you kill some poor noob for the zillionth time anyways.
Having noobs zones were you can't PvP or punishing people who do is just putting a band aid on, it is not enough and it wont work.
Also, you need mechanics that work similar for both PvE and PvP if you want both to be equally fun. That either takes away taunts and other tanking mechanics, or makes them actually work on other players as well as mobs or the combat will suck in PvP.
A huge power gap is bad design for a PvP first game. Yes, you can advance and be stronger. Certainly no modifers because of level advantages. But most PvP is done within PvE treadmills which is where the train of thought comes from.
I think most of you are wrong. The reason? You never played a real PvP oriented MMORPG. And yes in PvE solo games PK is plague, because they are PvE solo games. Think about PvP in historical therms - in medieval times, if you was not a part of one group, probably this group would kill you. In fact nothing changed in modern times, now we have lawyers who can ruin the life of our opponents. The act is changing, but the reason stays. In games all is simpler. You just fight vs digitally created characters, no matter mobs or players. So the system is quit modern - nobody have been killed at the end.
What is the reason for PK? Rarely it is insulting from other players. Mostly it is the same reason you kill millions of mobs, because deep in your self you are an animal, and even more, you are a social animal, so you want to dominate over other animals in your group. Maybe you deny it, but it is a fact. In modern times the acts of our animal instincts are often called heroism. To be brave, to be honest, to care about others, to win vs others - all are acts of our animal instincts. To be coward, to lie, to be defeatist - all are acts of our humanity. Animals are not cruel or evil in the wild, but many humans are. Don't get me wrong, it is not good to act like an animal or bad to act like a human, just people are complicated. So PKing in games is not something bad, done by evil people. Often it is an act of boredom, because there is nothing else to do in the game.
In P2P games PvP is important part of the game play. In Lineage 2 before GoD Pk was not act of domination but act of competition. The main reason for PK was fight for spots. After GoD the dev made the PK penalty very high, so most players created special high level characters for PK, because if you become red ones you stay red. And PK became plague.
So stop to think about PK like some act of cruelty and insulting, and start to think for it like act of competition. And you will see that reasons for mass PK are implemented in games, and can be fixed. I never played boring games, so I never PK except for farming spot and raid Bosses, which is the same in fact. If you can PvP freely, fight in guild wars, trade, make politics, craft creatively, and etc., you will PK only if it is rewarding.
You are 100% but the problem really is that in most games the PK part that annoys people is when someone who have zero chance of loosing kills and loots a bunch of noobs.
That is not competition at all, it is just meaningless slaughter, or in some games the easiest way to become rich with close to zero risk.
And yeah, I seen plenty of it myself, while I never played Lineage 2 I played the first game.
First of all you need to take out the rewards for killing someone helpless, or you need to make it so people aren't totally helpless like games like CoD have. That do mean that you can't have a huge difference between a new player and a vet but that is the cost of fun PvP.
Come on, all fun PvP is when you fight someone on close to equal terms and win because you play better, not when you kill some poor noob for the zillionth time anyways.
Having noobs zones were you can't PvP or punishing people who do is just putting a band aid on, it is not enough and it wont work.
Also, you need mechanics that work similar for both PvE and PvP if you want both to be equally fun. That either takes away taunts and other tanking mechanics, or makes them actually work on other players as well as mobs or the combat will suck in PvP.
Agreed.
And PK is anything but competitive.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I think we are going to end up just staying clear of PvP. Not because I think it can´t be done, and add fun to the game. But mainly just for marketing. The more we talk about new fun things we want to add to the game, more and more of them are about cooperation among players. I think open world, full loot pvp will just scare away the exact people who would enjoy the game the most
Well, you should definitely design your game around the people you think are going to show up. I wouldn't give up on PvP in general though. Even games like Lord of the Rings have a form of PvP in the game. It's kind of weak, but it's still there. If one of those cooperative activities lends itself well to larger scale group PvP, even if it's isolated or limited, there's no reason to discount it just because it's PvP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think most of you are wrong. The reason? You never played a real PvP oriented MMORPG. And yes in PvE solo games PK is plague, because they are PvE solo games. Think about PvP in historical therms - in medieval times, if you was not a part of one group, probably this group would kill you. In fact nothing changed in modern times, now we have lawyers who can ruin the life of our opponents. The act is changing, but the reason stays. In games all is simpler. You just fight vs digitally created characters, no matter mobs or players. So the system is quit modern - nobody have been killed at the end.
What is the reason for PK? Rarely it is insulting from other players. Mostly it is the same reason you kill millions of mobs, because deep in your self you are an animal, and even more, you are a social animal, so you want to dominate over other animals in your group. Maybe you deny it, but it is a fact. In modern times the acts of our animal instincts are often called heroism. To be brave, to be honest, to care about others, to win vs others - all are acts of our animal instincts. To be coward, to lie, to be defeatist - all are acts of our humanity. Animals are not cruel or evil in the wild, but many humans are. Don't get me wrong, it is not good to act like an animal or bad to act like a human, just people are complicated. So PKing in games is not something bad, done by evil people. Often it is an act of boredom, because there is nothing else to do in the game.
In P2P games PvP is important part of the game play. In Lineage 2 before GoD Pk was not act of domination but act of competition. The main reason for PK was fight for spots. After GoD the dev made the PK penalty very high, so most players created special high level characters for PK, because if you become red ones you stay red. And PK became plague.
So stop to think about PK like some act of cruelty and insulting, and start to think for it like act of competition. And you will see that reasons for mass PK are implemented in games, and can be fixed. I never played boring games, so I never PK except for farming spot and raid Bosses, which is the same in fact. If you can PvP freely, fight in guild wars, trade, make politics, craft creatively, and etc., you will PK only if it is rewarding.
You are 100% but the problem really is that in most games the PK part that annoys people is when someone who have zero chance of loosing kills and loots a bunch of noobs.
That is not competition at all, it is just meaningless slaughter, or in some games the easiest way to become rich with close to zero risk.
And yeah, I seen plenty of it myself, while I never played Lineage 2 I played the first game.
First of all you need to take out the rewards for killing someone helpless, or you need to make it so people aren't totally helpless like games like CoD have. That do mean that you can't have a huge difference between a new player and a vet but that is the cost of fun PvP.
Come on, all fun PvP is when you fight someone on close to equal terms and win because you play better, not when you kill some poor noob for the zillionth time anyways.
Having noobs zones were you can't PvP or punishing people who do is just putting a band aid on, it is not enough and it wont work.
Also, you need mechanics that work similar for both PvE and PvP if you want both to be equally fun. That either takes away taunts and other tanking mechanics, or makes them actually work on other players as well as mobs or the combat will suck in PvP.
A huge power gap is bad design for a PvP first game. Yes, you can advance and be stronger. Certainly no modifers because of level advantages. But most PvP is done within PvE treadmills which is where the train of thought comes from.
Absolutely agree. And furthermore it is one of the salient problems and a big part of the not so good reputation for PvP in MMOs, that most PvP is done in PvE threadmills.. and in most cases poorly done(from pvp and pve perspective), and with hundreds of holes for griefing. Low level ganking may be the most prominent.
Noone wants it. And even more there is absolutely no need, no requirement, no advantage of it, to make it able, to allow it, it is just bad game design.
If you do have a PvE threadmill.. just let the pvp out of the game.. because your PvP will be bad anyway.. pvp player will leave your game sooner or later anyway.. and you will have a lot of problems with bad compromises. Or encapsle it into PvP areas.. though.. those kind of pvp is usually better done with a game just focusing on that.. like GW1 or any successful MOBA. Not even mentioning the more often than not required gear grind to be even able to partake in those pvp battlegrounds, arenas or PvP frontiers(DAoC, ESO, GW2 aka RvR),
If you want to have a MMO with PvP and PvE.. then you have to have both in mind. And then everything Loke666 said comes to play.. avoid huge vertical progression, huge power gaps(some is no problem and works even in Battlefield series). Make mechanics work exactly the same for PvP and PvE.. and so on and so forth.. and finally, that game will foremost be a game for people, which want to have pvp(not necessary pvp alone, but they have to be interested in pvp), and as for every game. Know your audience, make the game for your audience and market it directed to this audience. You can't please all. And some PvE only players, or players which really do like huge vertical progression and power gaps(like hardcore raiders maybe) will never like your game as much as a game focusing on their main content and focus.
And directed to the OP: Then it is not enough to just offer a PK system. You would need territorial control, guild wars, sieges resource control and more.. And so it may be easier to let out pvp completely and focus more on that part of your game, which is the main focus.. the pve and cooperation. And that comes from a pvp player.. and yeap, i may not play your game, but overall your main audience will most probably happier, and your game will be better for what it is. A MMORPG focusing on PvE and cooperation.
I think we are going to end up just staying clear of PvP. Not because I think it can´t be done, and add fun to the game. But mainly just for marketing. The more we talk about new fun things we want to add to the game, more and more of them are about cooperation among players. I think open world, full loot pvp will just scare away the exact people who would enjoy the game the most
Well, you should definitely design your game around the people you think are going to show up. I wouldn't give up on PvP in general though. Even games like Lord of the Rings have a form of PvP in the game. It's kind of weak, but it's still there. If one of those cooperative activities lends itself well to larger scale group PvP, even if it's isolated or limited, there's no reason to discount it just because it's PvP.
Seriously.. noone play LOTRO for their pvp system. I could bet, that they do not have 1 player(subscribing longer than 3 month), which did it because they have this pvp system. In all honestly it is a waste of time and resources in most cases.. especially when your pvp system is as weak as in LOTRO.. but i could name a lot of other games like LOTRO as well. WoW the most prominent one.
Of course there may some players, which do like pve and want to have some pvp on their terms. But in all honestly it is easier, when those players just play a different game for their share of pvp, instead of integrate another afterthough pvp system into your game.
I think we are going to end up just staying clear of PvP. Not because I think it can´t be done, and add fun to the game. But mainly just for marketing. The more we talk about new fun things we want to add to the game, more and more of them are about cooperation among players. I think open world, full loot pvp will just scare away the exact people who would enjoy the game the most
Well, you should definitely design your game around the people you think are going to show up. I wouldn't give up on PvP in general though. Even games like Lord of the Rings have a form of PvP in the game. It's kind of weak, but it's still there. If one of those cooperative activities lends itself well to larger scale group PvP, even if it's isolated or limited, there's no reason to discount it just because it's PvP.
Seriously.. noone play LOTRO for their pvp system. I could bet, that they do not have 1 player(subscribing longer than 3 month), which did it because they have this pvp system. In all honestly it is a waste of time and resources in most cases.. especially when your pvp system is as weak as in LOTRO.. but i could name a lot of other games like LOTRO as well. WoW the most prominent one.
Of course there may some players, which do like pve and want to have some pvp on their terms. But in all honestly it is easier, when those players just play a different game for their share of pvp, instead of integrate another afterthough pvp system into your game.
The PvP needs to be designed for the people who are going to play the game. Most LotRO players are not going to name the PvP as something that keeps them playing day after day, but it's certainly something many LotRO players have participated in. Many, many WoW players have participated in and enjoyed WoW's PvP as well. The "right" type of PvP is the type of PvP that the people playing the game want.
If the type of game is heavy on large scale, cooperative efforts, then large scale PvP, which also requires a large scale, cooperative effort may be the right type of PvP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Warhammer was a great example of a highly cooperative game that also had highly cooperative PvP. Doing the public group quests in the newbie area I was like "this game is awesome" and by the time I reached the newbie PvP zone I was like "this game is freaking awesome"
As soon as you kill another player, a shout goes out throughout the capital city with your name. Your character gets tinted red to other players and your fortress sign (housing) gets painted red. In the capital city, your name gets posted along with the coordinates to your fortress on a bulliten board, but there is no bounty system ( too easy to exploit). Each murder results in 15 days of being red. Once you are red, ANY time you kill another player results in 15 more days being added to the timer, this includes killing players who attack you first.
Are you seriously advocating 15 RL days of punition because the kill of a single toon (that, i supose, didn't received even 10% of the punishment damage)?!
Man, if you hate pking so much, or if you consider a toon death a so much big deal, it's better to advocate the total abolition of pvp itself.
Ofc it is competitive, but in real MMORPG. When we are talking about solo RPGs, it cannot be competitive, because in these games competition is removed and turned into comparison of fictive stats. Have you ever PK for spot or raid? Let say while you are farming mobs, I come and start to kill mobs faster than you. What will you do? Log off till I finish? Or let say some party is doing raid, but other party wants the same Boss - PK is very possible, but the winners shall be very fast in raiding after that. So PK is competitive in MMORPG with open world and FFA PvP. You are talking only about ganking, which shows you just mean wrong games.
No, I haven't PKed for a spawnpoint or a raid. If you find me doing something akin to that please smack me across the face if we meet in real life since clearly I've lost my marbles then.
PK is not competitive because...
Stats are not controlled
Numbers are not controlled
I am a competitive player and instances is where I find competitive PvP. Open world PvP is casual for me. I can't take it "seriously". Victory or defeat depends solely on me in competitive PvP whereas in OW PvP it could be (and most likely is) due to non-skill factors. You can be good and still lose or you can be bad and still win.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
No, I haven't PKed for a spawnpoint or a raid. If you find me doing something akin to that please smack me across the face if we meet in real life since clearly I've lost my marbles then.
PK is not competitive because...
Stats are not controlled
Numbers are not controlled
I am a competitive player and instances is where I find competitive PvP. Open world PvP is casual for me. I can't take it "seriously". Victory or defeat depends solely on me in competitive PvP whereas in OW PvP it could be (and most likely is) due to non-skill factors. You can be good and still lose or you can be bad and still win.
Seems you don't understand the term competition. What you said in marketing terms is - subjects in state controlled market are more competitive than these in open market. It is untrue. You can be really competitive only in open world PvP. Competition is not equality. Instanced PvP is for statistical players, which are usually unskilled in dynamic area with changing conditions, and lose easy, where they have to use smarter and creative tactics. So, because stats and numbers are not controlled, open world PvP is competitive, but instanced PvP is not. The best win is when you are outnumbered or when you fight vs player with better stats and gear.
Buddy, you don't understand competition.
Controlled market is indeed more competitive, because it gives a fair chance for everyone. An open market would allow things like monopolies and cartels which make honest competition impossible. Good competition is about equal opportunity. And that is what instanced PvP is about. Your metaphor backfired.
Furthermore, creative tactics and situational awerness lend themselves as much to instanced PvP as non-instanced PvP.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Controlled market is indeed more competitive, because it gives a fair chance for everyone. An open market would allow things like monopolies and cartels which make honest competition impossible. Good competition is about equal opportunity. And that is what instanced PvP is about. Your metaphor backfired.
Furthermore, creative tactics and situational awerness lend themselves as much to instanced PvP as non-instanced PvP.
I don't understand? See, if we follow your logic, communists created most competitive markets in the world. It even sounds stupid. Competition have nothing with equality. If you cannot win against stronger enemies you are not competitive. In fact PvP instances are for casual players. I know what I'm talking about because I won many fights in different arenas and games, but I won battles with thousands of players too. In open PvP often wins not the stronger player, but smarter and skilled one. After open fights, where you shall take care, not only about enemy, but about his allies, other players, strangers and mobs, arena fights are so easy.
Communism? Try again without the strawman. I am talking more along the lines of regulated market versus unregulated market - not communism versus capitalism. Also, smarter and a more skilled player means "a stronger player".
Competition has everything to do with equality and fair chance. Sports is an excellent example of this. If you want to experience good competition, play e-sports. OW PvP is mainly about the suspense and atmosphere not about competition.
I should know, I have also "won many fights in different arenas and games" as well as in "battles with thousands of players too".
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Controlled market is indeed more competitive, because it gives a fair chance for everyone. An open market would allow things like monopolies and cartels which make honest competition impossible. Good competition is about equal opportunity. And that is what instanced PvP is about. Your metaphor backfired.
Furthermore, creative tactics and situational awerness lend themselves as much to instanced PvP as non-instanced PvP.
I don't understand? See, if we follow your logic, communists created most competitive markets in the world. It even sounds stupid. Competition have nothing with equality. If you cannot win against stronger enemies you are not competitive. In fact PvP instances are for casual players. I know what I'm talking about because I won many fights in different arenas and games, but I won battles with thousands of players too. In open PvP often wins not the stronger player, but smarter and skilled one. After open fights, where you shall take care, not only about enemy, but about his allies, other players, strangers and mobs, arena fights are so easy.
Communism? Try again without the strawman. I am talking more along the lines of regulated market versus unregulated market - not communism versus capitalism. Also, smarter and a more skilled player means "a stronger player".
Competition has everything to do with equality and fair chance. Sports is an excellent example of this. If you want to experience good competition, play e-sports. OW PvP is mainly about the suspense and atmosphere not about competition.
I should know, I have also "won many fights in different arenas and games" as well as in "battles with thousands of players too".
Damn.. me too.
And you are both wrong.. both is competition. And with that said.. there is not something like equality and fair chance. Not in sports, not in e-sports, not in instanced arenas battlegrounds, not in rated arena/battlegrounds, not in rated leagues of different multiplayer games(like starcraft).
Because in 90%+ of all cases the one (group or) player is clearly better than (the other).. even the most advanced match making algorithm does not change that a lot(maybe from 95% to 85%). Battles were actually every side could win are rare in any case. In most cases the winner is already set before the game.. just none of both actually know it til a few seconds/minutes into the game.
Or as example.. do your really think that any nation partaking in the FIFA World Cup does have the same chance? Clearly not. Some have just better players, more teamwork, and better tactics as other.. some are clear outsider and will never win(like US team) and some are favorites(like Brazil) with a high chance of winning. (those can change from year to year)
And a open world scenario just delivers even more randomness into a battle.. it is still competition. Though there is not a lot of competition in slaying others, where you exactly know, that they have not the slightest chance(like low level ganking)
Comments
Not if it drives away most players and doom the game.
Because we want player choice. In a FFAPVP game without a penalty that holds behavior accountable bad behavior becomes out of balance. You get a world with a ton of wolves with little sheep. Wolves should be a vast minority.
But what is being offered up is ways to punish the player, not the character, for taking part in that aspect of gameplay. These threads are all the same - a quest for a revenge system against other players. Nothing presented so far adds any value to the PVP gameplay.
You're not asking for player choice. You are, in your own words, looking to penalize or punish other players.
"Wolves should be a vast minority" ...in an FFA PVP game? Can be, yes. Depends on the design. Should be? That's some really odd design decisions right there. At that point, why make it FFA PVP?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
In Puzzle PIrates, if PVPers are attacking too many players that are less skilled than they are, the Black Ship sails out and kicks their asses. Maybe more games need something like that.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I agree with you there. But the thing that in many FFA PvP games you actually can earn more with a lot less risk by killing and looting a bunch of noobs than actually doing something hard or risky.
Risk Vs reward is the most important factor to make a game fun, and the majority of players play the way that is most rewarding.
Actually punishing players should be a last step you take when everything else have failed, not your first choice. Try rewarding players more for harder stuff like actually defeating hard opponents instead of easy ones. And if that means that you can't loot everything from the noobs you gank then fine.
There will always be a few bad apples who kill people just to annoy them but in many games that is the easiest way to become rich and that is just plain wrong. First you need to stop reward players for playing a certain way instead of punish them for playing the way you also rewards them most for.
It makes zero sense to have a PvP system in place where you are going to punish anybody for engaging in it.. pk or otherwise. You may as well not have that option at all, if you are going to try and make it as unattractive as humanly possible.
Am I the only one seeing the stupidity of it?
CoD is that way >>>>
You need to have risk/reward balanced because any gameplay other than PKing will get overwhelmed by a pack of PKs standing 2 feet outside of protected zones.
Again, it is great to have these ideas, and they work in games like CoD.. but we have already had UO as the great social experiment and they had to quickly start punishing PK ( stat loss) to even get things remotely under control. Without stat-loss, the game would have died very fast where you had a minority of players just feeding on sheep, and the sheep were quitting rapidly. You had most new players quitting very quickly because any gameplay that was advertised, or anything that sounded amazing was never seen by those players. They stepped out of town, and they were dead before they could even see who did it. Not a lot of people make it past their first month.
"CoD is that way" ... A very telling comment that is.
CoD works. You are trying to implement something that has never worked very well. Not only that but today's players are much more likely to exploit any weakness in it and shred the whole system. These are not the same players that were present in ye old days of UO.
Risk vs reward is an easy concept to latch on to because it is simple and easy to understand and it is easy thing to point towards. Much harder would be to design a rewarding and challenging gameplay without the need harsh punishments looming over you in order to feel something, anything.
Atleast good gameplay is enjoyed by everyone. Risk vs reward only applies to people with tendencies toward gambling. And since you haven't really addressed the issue how easy it is to PK, we can assume the odds of a PKer to fail is fairly low - as it has always been. The odds are still stacked in PKer's favor even though the punishment is severe.
A smart PKer might hardly ever have to suffer the consequences of his/her playstyle. All you need to do, is to pick your battles and be moderately good in a fight. You should never engage in something you might lose -And why should you? The penalties are insanely high if you lose.
High risk will only serve to make the fights even more one-sided, because players are cowards, and coward are not going to engage in a fight they might lose.
So I say this again in another way: How about turning your attention away from punishment to increasing the chances of the victim, hmm? After all if you can make the victim's chances of winning good, he/she might actually enjoy the experience, and if you would keep the penalties to a minimum people would engage in good PvP more frequently.
By staring at risk vs reward and focusing only on the punishment aspect of it, I feel you are doing everything wrong and you are not learning from past mistakes. My question is, are you in it to repeat what UO did, or are you trying to do something better?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Truth is.. he does have a point. Your PK system may work out.
But the overall game design is not attractive for pvp players without anything else but PKing, which most pvp players don't prefer anyway. Plus a possible additional burden on a lot of pve players, which would prefer don't to bother with PvP at all.
With other words.. nor PvP player neither pure PvE player will like that system.. it is just for a minority of gamers overall.. Those pve players, which like some danger.. and those PvPs(lets call them rp pvpers), which actually like to play a murderer but nothing else.
It is still about player choice. The consequence of player choices doesn't mean the choice is not there. If I want to be a bandit then I can be bandit. Imprisonment is meant to counter banditry with time taken from the player just as robbing a player of 4 hours of mining is done by the bandit. This also allows you to have game focused on group vs. group combat but still have individual conflict.
And I'm not out for some sort of revenge. I was the random PK in UO. UO is the ultimate standard experiment for player interactions. Free killing without punishment leads to wolves over running everything. You don't want consquences only be paid by the victims and those playing normal. While those committing the crimes generally pay nothing.
You are 100% but the problem really is that in most games the PK part that annoys people is when someone who have zero chance of loosing kills and loots a bunch of noobs.
That is not competition at all, it is just meaningless slaughter, or in some games the easiest way to become rich with close to zero risk.
And yeah, I seen plenty of it myself, while I never played Lineage 2 I played the first game.
First of all you need to take out the rewards for killing someone helpless, or you need to make it so people aren't totally helpless like games like CoD have. That do mean that you can't have a huge difference between a new player and a vet but that is the cost of fun PvP.
Come on, all fun PvP is when you fight someone on close to equal terms and win because you play better, not when you kill some poor noob for the zillionth time anyways.
Having noobs zones were you can't PvP or punishing people who do is just putting a band aid on, it is not enough and it wont work.
Also, you need mechanics that work similar for both PvE and PvP if you want both to be equally fun. That either takes away taunts and other tanking mechanics, or makes them actually work on other players as well as mobs or the combat will suck in PvP.
Very nice! I like the concepts, and as another fellow MMORPG.com forums user developing mmo documentation as well, I would like to help you point out just a few things.
~I think giving the coordinates to the home shouldn't happen unless it is discovered by a random non-red npc or player.
~The chat or world announcements may become overwhelming, what if a (excuse me if I misunderstood something of what you wrote) faction war happens or a 'militia of murderers' bands together and starts mass murdering people. That would be insane in chat, maybe bulletins, or horns in the town can signify it rather than a large banner of text or voicing it.
That's all I can really think of for now, good luck in producing this or putting together the notes, good to see others want to make good mmo's as well!
Never fear, your dream MMO will be here....
just give me a decade or two to finely hone my Game development
and design abilities as well as start a Game Design Studio.
Thank you for your patience.
A huge power gap is bad design for a PvP first game. Yes, you can advance and be stronger. Certainly no modifers because of level advantages. But most PvP is done within PvE treadmills which is where the train of thought comes from.
Agreed.
And PK is anything but competitive.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Well, you should definitely design your game around the people you think are going to show up. I wouldn't give up on PvP in general though. Even games like Lord of the Rings have a form of PvP in the game. It's kind of weak, but it's still there. If one of those cooperative activities lends itself well to larger scale group PvP, even if it's isolated or limited, there's no reason to discount it just because it's PvP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Absolutely agree. And furthermore it is one of the salient problems and a big part of the not so good reputation for PvP in MMOs, that most PvP is done in PvE threadmills.. and in most cases poorly done(from pvp and pve perspective), and with hundreds of holes for griefing. Low level ganking may be the most prominent.
Noone wants it. And even more there is absolutely no need, no requirement, no advantage of it, to make it able, to allow it, it is just bad game design.
If you do have a PvE threadmill.. just let the pvp out of the game.. because your PvP will be bad anyway.. pvp player will leave your game sooner or later anyway.. and you will have a lot of problems with bad compromises. Or encapsle it into PvP areas.. though.. those kind of pvp is usually better done with a game just focusing on that.. like GW1 or any successful MOBA. Not even mentioning the more often than not required gear grind to be even able to partake in those pvp battlegrounds, arenas or PvP frontiers(DAoC, ESO, GW2 aka RvR),
If you want to have a MMO with PvP and PvE.. then you have to have both in mind. And then everything Loke666 said comes to play.. avoid huge vertical progression, huge power gaps(some is no problem and works even in Battlefield series). Make mechanics work exactly the same for PvP and PvE.. and so on and so forth.. and finally, that game will foremost be a game for people, which want to have pvp(not necessary pvp alone, but they have to be interested in pvp), and as for every game. Know your audience, make the game for your audience and market it directed to this audience. You can't please all. And some PvE only players, or players which really do like huge vertical progression and power gaps(like hardcore raiders maybe) will never like your game as much as a game focusing on their main content and focus.
And directed to the OP: Then it is not enough to just offer a PK system. You would need territorial control, guild wars, sieges resource control and more.. And so it may be easier to let out pvp completely and focus more on that part of your game, which is the main focus.. the pve and cooperation. And that comes from a pvp player.. and yeap, i may not play your game, but overall your main audience will most probably happier, and your game will be better for what it is. A MMORPG focusing on PvE and cooperation.
Seriously.. noone play LOTRO for their pvp system. I could bet, that they do not have 1 player(subscribing longer than 3 month), which did it because they have this pvp system. In all honestly it is a waste of time and resources in most cases.. especially when your pvp system is as weak as in LOTRO.. but i could name a lot of other games like LOTRO as well. WoW the most prominent one.
Of course there may some players, which do like pve and want to have some pvp on their terms. But in all honestly it is easier, when those players just play a different game for their share of pvp, instead of integrate another afterthough pvp system into your game.
The PvP needs to be designed for the people who are going to play the game. Most LotRO players are not going to name the PvP as something that keeps them playing day after day, but it's certainly something many LotRO players have participated in. Many, many WoW players have participated in and enjoyed WoW's PvP as well. The "right" type of PvP is the type of PvP that the people playing the game want.
If the type of game is heavy on large scale, cooperative efforts, then large scale PvP, which also requires a large scale, cooperative effort may be the right type of PvP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Are you seriously advocating 15 RL days of punition because the kill of a single toon (that, i supose, didn't received even 10% of the punishment damage)?!
Man, if you hate pking so much, or if you consider a toon death a so much big deal, it's better to advocate the total abolition of pvp itself.
No, I haven't PKed for a spawnpoint or a raid. If you find me doing something akin to that please smack me across the face if we meet in real life since clearly I've lost my marbles then.
PK is not competitive because...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Buddy, you don't understand competition.
Controlled market is indeed more competitive, because it gives a fair chance for everyone. An open market would allow things like monopolies and cartels which make honest competition impossible. Good competition is about equal opportunity. And that is what instanced PvP is about. Your metaphor backfired.
Furthermore, creative tactics and situational awerness lend themselves as much to instanced PvP as non-instanced PvP.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Communism? Try again without the strawman. I am talking more along the lines of regulated market versus unregulated market - not communism versus capitalism. Also, smarter and a more skilled player means "a stronger player".
Competition has everything to do with equality and fair chance. Sports is an excellent example of this. If you want to experience good competition, play e-sports. OW PvP is mainly about the suspense and atmosphere not about competition.
I should know, I have also "won many fights in different arenas and games" as well as in "battles with thousands of players too".
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Damn.. me too.
And you are both wrong.. both is competition. And with that said.. there is not something like equality and fair chance. Not in sports, not in e-sports, not in instanced arenas battlegrounds, not in rated arena/battlegrounds, not in rated leagues of different multiplayer games(like starcraft).
Because in 90%+ of all cases the one (group or) player is clearly better than (the other).. even the most advanced match making algorithm does not change that a lot(maybe from 95% to 85%). Battles were actually every side could win are rare in any case. In most cases the winner is already set before the game.. just none of both actually know it til a few seconds/minutes into the game.
Or as example.. do your really think that any nation partaking in the FIFA World Cup does have the same chance? Clearly not. Some have just better players, more teamwork, and better tactics as other.. some are clear outsider and will never win(like US team) and some are favorites(like Brazil) with a high chance of winning. (those can change from year to year)
And a open world scenario just delivers even more randomness into a battle.. it is still competition. Though there is not a lot of competition in slaying others, where you exactly know, that they have not the slightest chance(like low level ganking)
But seriously.. that is now clearly off topic.