Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Big Scale PvP
Kuppa
Member UncommonPosts: 3,292
I wanted to start a thread about how big scale pvp is being implemented in current day MMOs. To start off I want to point out what I mean by "Big Scale PvP". Its pvp that happens in big zones/areas with many players(give or take over 50 on each side). This means battlegrounds/arenas don't count neither does open world sandbox pvp. Again, I am not defining what "Big Scale PvP" means Im just establishing what it means for the purposes of this discussion. Keep in mind, I havent played many of the old school games so you guys can keep me in check.
Lets start by detailing the current implementations:
- 2 Factions: This can be seen in games like WAR and TOR, were two factions pit against each other.
- 3 Factions, 1 of them is NPC: We have seen this in Aion, were there are two player factions and a third NPC faction.
- 3 Factions: Yes its DAOC, TESO, TSW. 3 player factions going against each other.
- 3 Servers: GW2 is the only I know of that uses this setup. 3 servers go up against each other.
If anyone feels I left any style of pvp out please let me know. With that said I want to examine what we have. Lets start from the beggining:
2 Factions
2 faction pvp might be the least desirable. In paper it seems fine but there are two problems with the implementation. One is that its per server. This means that you will see many servers were one side is always beating up the other, which takes us to the other downfall. The fact that its just two factions. If one is too good then you run into very big problems because you basically end up with a bad apple server.
Not to say this could be done better though. For example, most sports are played by two "entities". How do you keep a balance? by rankings and matchups. There will always be bad and good teams you just have to balance them. WIth current day setup this is not possible since it all lives in one server.
3 Faction, 1 of them is NPC
This is a noble attempt at fixing the 2 faciton problem. Bring in an NPC faction into the mix. Unfortunately this shares some problems as well. One is that your NPC factions AI has to be really really good. You don't want them beign useless or overpowering, but just the right mix. Two is that you lose the sense of pvp when one of the factions is not player made. It can for some cheapen the experience.
3 Faction
3 faction pvp looks to aliviate the problems we see with 2 faction pvp by introducint a 3rd faction. Here you have more balance since you expect that a super power faction can be countered by two others. One problem is still is that its per server. You can still see servers were it will be a ghost town or just one side can be way too overpowering.
It does bring a good bit of meta game since factions can create alliences and mix up things a bit with a bit of drama.
3 Servers
This looks to model more after arena based pvp. Have servers battle against each other and rotate them and try to match them agaisnt good competition. This too has big problems. One is that you need a big population in order to keep the system working well. Another is that it can break the sense of animosity and rivalry that is constantly present when the pvp is in the same server. There can still be rivalries, but in a different way.
So, that is what I think of the different "Big Scale PvP" setups. What do you think? How viable is a 4 faction pvp or more? would it be better if all types of pvp were server vs server based instead of per server?What do you think are the pros and cons of these and others and what do you think would be a better approach?
Comments
TERA was suppose to get 4 sided server vs server battles, but i don't know what happened with that. Just to give heads up.
Anyway, i hope i'm not misunderstanding the point, but you're asking which setup is better to balance things out in large scal pvp, right? Well, honestly, i don't think any of them is.
As you pointed out OP, all of them have advantages and disadvantages. Let me use my own example. IMO, one of the reason why there's always such a big difference in 2 faction games is because the theme of each side is almost always "Red, black colored faction with badasses and elements of pride and strenght and non-human like races" and the "Blue, white colored faction with defenders of justice and good with humanoid races". The difference is night and day.
Now, i don't have facts or numbers, but in TSW, it seems there's a good balance over all the 3 sides from many different sources. I believe this is so because each faction is not simply the opposite of the other. There's alot of depth to each. If this was applied to a 2 faction game, it could create a better balance.
There are different ways we can think off to try to have better control of the "fairness" of the battles, but i don't think there's a clear path that guarantees that balance. And i don't feel the ones you presented are any of them. It's just too complex IMHO.
Also, maybe you could poll.
Interesing, I did not know about those plans in TERA, that would be pretty cool.
You understood correctly, but more than which one can achive balance is which one can do it best(not neccessarily succed).
You bring up a good point, In the mayority of these the factions have some sort of personality which will inevitably lead to some beign more popular than others no matter what they are. Maybe things should be "faction less"?
There will never be complete balance but I have always thought that rankings is the closest thing to balance.
I thought about a poll but if I did that I would need many polls because there are many questions
Why doesn't open world sandbox "count"?
UO, Shadowbane, Darkfall, all had 100+ vs 100+ fights, usually at a predetermined time for sieges/banes/mines, just FYI.
Also, in DAOC Mordred (PvP server), clans essentially replaced factions, and it was not uncommon to see half the server fighting over keeps and whatnot in the RvR lakes, or absolutely nothing at all pretty much anywhere/everywhere. It wasnt 50 v 50, but it was sure more than 100 people fighting each other at the same time.
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
-The MMO Forum Community
It doesn't "count" for the discussion only, Im not trying to claim it isnt Big Scale PvP. As far as why I didn't count it, is because sandboxes are a completely different thing especially in pvp. Its community organized and doesn't require much design from the devs. It is a sandbox and let the users play, balance is not even a thought at that level.
This is more towards looking at the balance that exists or could exists in designed pvp with rules and boundaries.
http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/08/27/pax-2011-tera-producers-reveal-server-vs-server-endgame-conten/
Fair enoug, but i still don't think we can truly find one that is better or closet.
Allow me to use another example. Imagine a large scall pvp area that it's 500 vs 500 (2 faction). To enter, you must have max level, gear, skills, everything so that we're all at the exact same powerline. Now, what happens is that, when a faction as less players than the other (500 vs 200), the side with the less players gets an amount of npc warrior that have max everything (the point of balance) to even the amounts out, so it gets 500 vs 500.
Now, a system like this would be quite complex to make, but let's say it happens. If you added a third faction, it would be more problematic than good, because now devs need to work on the AI to work with 3 sides instead of 2.
Another example using GW2's wvwvww system. The top 3 ranked servers wil be matched up against each other, right? (server a, b, and c). The thing is, nothing guarantees that server c, for example, is on the level of server a and b. It may be in the top3, butit may not because it's as good as the other 2, it simply sucks less than all the rest. Now imagine the balance for that. Remember, i'm not saying this will happen with the love game, but it's a possibility
What i'm basically trying to say is that all of your example are good, but when asking which one is better to find balance, it's not possible to give a clear answer because it mostly depends on the mechanics, map design and multyple other systems of the pvp itself.
EDIT: Ranked svs for example might be better for a certain pvp setup, but 2 factions might be the way to go it there are systems to benefit from it.
You are digging a few levels deeper than what I was posing here. I was trying to keep it at a higher level because we wont design a balanced pvp system here. I think we can both agree there is no ultimate balance, but there has to be a system that provides the best foundation for balanced pvp. And actually we can go beyond and look at fun factor. Which one of these, or others, could be the funnest?
neocron for example had 8 factions
4 on each side, but all could fight each other.
also, i think the biggest pvp we will see in the comming time will be planetside (2).
3 faction combat too, but....
that's all there is to planetside, nothing else matters but pvp
no npcs, no punny quests or raids vs ai to get better setup (so you can START to pvp as it has been in other games in the past), just balls of steel!
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Interesting! 8 faction!
PS2 is gonna be great. I expect some servers to be bad apples though so I hope not to end up in one of those
Guild vs Guild
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 really wasnt that impressed by WvWvW in GW2. It looked fun and a good time waste but there was alot of hype about it being the new modern day RvR like daocs.
They seem to of failed with alot of stuff that made rvr so good in daoc.
In GW2 i see no support for people that want to solo, no easily accessable areas/fast traveling. No player names on targets or announced upon deaths. Rivalrys were a big part of what made doac rvr so fun. Knowing your enemy.
The Towers didnt feel very balanced towards small groups either. guards were tough and fast spawning. Siege weapons require multiple running back to grab rescources, door and oil had alot of hp. I highly doubt a group could take a tower in an active WvWvW server group. A few defenders would arrive before you deal any real damage to a door and then you are screwed.
Because of the game design either i cant see 'elite/well organised' 5man groups taking on large numbers of normal players. cutting them off infront of the keep they waypoint and preventing reinforcements to a major battle for example dont see it happening.
I guess they intend people to escort caravans and do the mob grinding to activate npc attacks but meh i would of liked some smaller scale pvp in such big zones to happen alongside the big fights.
GvG is actually a very peculiar one since it requires you to be in a guild. It doesn't really cover the general population like the others do.
While I don't agree that there is nothing to do for solo players I can see some things that could be changed in order to make smaller groups more viable. There are waypoints btw, you just have to buy them(if Im remember well) for the keeps you own. I also saw and participated in many smaller scale skirmishes, so there is smaller scale pvp.
Regardles, what do you think about the system itself, Do you think it was a good idea to go server vs server?
/faceplam
Cant tell of stupid or trolling hard.
The game is balanced around having alot of level 80 players running around doing more damage than level 10-30. It's the same with the guards. Guards strong vs low levels and easy/medium vs high levels. Same with walls.
Aww...such a pity that you discounted sandboxes...*cough cough Eve Online cough*.
Where's the any key?
That doesnt matter... you have to run in drop a rams build site. This already puts marker on map. You then have to make atleast 1 trip to get extra supply to build the thing. There is just no way you would take a tower in an active wvw zone, and how do you figure with walls/doors. the siege weapons are doing fixed damage from what i could tell nothing to do with your equipment.
I agree sandboxes are great in their own terms. But they differ from what I wanted to look at in this post their pvp is very different.
When you get upgrades for your guild you can carry 15 supply up from 10 supply with the first upgrade, it is currenly unknown if you can upgrade it to 20 supply or more. If i remember correctly a ram cost 30 supply. So you need 2! people to set up ram.
And you can upgrade your keep with a waypoint so you can teleport there if it's not under attack.
I misunderstood the title and OP then. So the thread is just about Faction Warfare?
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 are right, I didn't rule out GvGs in the OP with my description. The only reason why I am not counting them is because not everyone can participate and some games have specific systems for it while others require the guilds themselves to set things up. In the latter case you can't really enforce any balancing desing around it. In the former though you can see games like GW1 that had a ladder to match up guilds.
Is there any games gvg you were thinking about specifically?
But that's what i'm trying to say. You ask "Which of these 4 choices are better to give balance to large scale pvp?", but there isn't a clear answer and it's not that simple. An npc faction might be a good option to give better balance in the present of 2 unbalanced factions, but they'd have to be unvein in the first place for it to be so, which might change from game to game. I just don't agree that we can generalize it like that. All of them are good options, but i don't see 1 of them being a universal choice.
Also, which one is more fun also depends on many factors. I like faction based because of lore and story and faction pride and rivalry. An npc faction could be a cool factor, but it could also ruin everything.
Lets change the question. Which one would you choose if it was your task to decide the grand scale of your game? Remember, it could be something else too not necessarily any of those.
I was a bit confused as well after reading comments. :P
As for faction warefare, the more factions the better in my opinion. I think the two faction design has been fully backed, and a little boring at this point. A three faction system adds a little more chaos, but only marginally so.
I know we're not discussing sandboxes, but what I do like in regards to factions and pvp is the ability for players to essentially define factions. And, mostly pvp revolves on the acquisition or sustaining of territor; giving something 'real' for players to battle for.
With respect to GW2, and SvS PvP, is I do hope the designers stea ... err borrow a lot from DAOC.
In my opinion big scale should be atleast 1000 players on ONE map/zone whatever.
If Planetside which is an FPS could pull of 400 players at once, (sometimes ALL at ONE base) a tab based game should atleast be able to do 1000.
Off course this won't happen since in my opinion we are moving backwards with regards to online gaming. And not only mmo but online pvp in general. (console 8 vs 8 nonsence while Battlefield 1942 TEN years ago already had 32 vs 32)
I also think 3 factions is better then two. Still far from perfect though. NPC's have no place in pvp.
I think we have to keep in mind PS2 is only doing pvp and big battles. They have more reasorces working on that, mmos have many other things to work on. So I give them a pass on that.
Well...it's basically impossible to completely balance large scale PvP fully. It's really just a matter of how close you can get to that goal or not, but since it's such a moving target that's the best you can hope for.
In this regard I think 3 factions is the best way to do this, even though it's not a perfect solution either. Having everything on one server would also help, but again, not a perfect solution. A couple things are abscent from this discussion that I think are extremely important.
1) Incentive. Having balanced incentives on all sides is what really makes or breaks PvP. They also have to be good incentives, and feel forth doing. This is where I feel DAoC and GW2 are doing things right. Incentives not only keep people PvPing, but they also help breed rivalry, as it sparks competition.
2) Population Balancers. This isn't something you generally see, but is something that is very important. For example, GW2 has siege weapons that allow a small force to take down a much larger one fairly quickly. They aren't free, but can be used as needed when things go badly. In most games, if you're side is outnumbered, it becomes either a mass rage quit or a game of hide & seek until you get more players. This again makes PvP go stale, and ultimately people stop doing it.
3) Time zones. Again, not something that is really discussed. I don't know of any game that has really tried to balance for this. However, all of us that have played a lot of MMO PvP should know the situation I'm talking about. It's when one side waits for the other to log off, and then takes over all their stuff. It basically feeds into population imbalance.
- As you kinda pointed out in the OP, no system is perfect. No system will ever be perfect. I think this is one of those hard facts certain MMO fans are going to have to learn. Every big design choice is a trade off. Think of it almost like a rubix cube. Every choice you make gives you a benefit at the cost of something else, until eventually you (hopefully) have the right fit of colors.