Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
FFA PvP, PvP flagging off/on, PvP servers, PvErs, Safezones, and a new way to handle it all.
AccountDeleted12341
Member Posts: 351
I was thinking about it, and remembered my all-time favorite game design of Horizons (before it became Istaria). This got me thinking about an interesting concept: PvP flagging based entirely on Class or Race choices.
For example, let's say there are a lot of Races like in Everquest, Shadowbane, or old Horizons: Human, Elf, Fae, Orc, Goblin, Vampire, Dragon, Giant, Dwarf, Demon, Angel.
It is my firm belief that like most things in life, most people are NOT extremists and instead lie somewhere between a line which holds both ends.
Most players fit in somewhere between
|.....[here]......................and......................[here].....|
100% PvPer ---------------------------|---------------------------- 100%PvEr
HATES PvE 50/50 Loves Both Equally DETESTS PvP
Life Between the Extremes
Few people will NEVER EVER PvE or literally feel disgusted by the idea of PvP. If this were not true, then PuG's and random instant Battlegrounds wouldn't be full of 99% easy targets or people who don't seem to know what they're doing. If you are very good at PvP or take it "seriously" (laugh) you will quickly find yourself near the top of charts with little effort due to how many "PvErs" actually participate in casual battleground PvP. Although uncommon, there are players who play Darkfall for the PvE/Crafting aspect (and thrill of being a target, but not a good PvPer). There is rarely a person SO HARDCORE and EXTREME on one side that they detest with utter hatred the other type of gameplay. Even so, those who do often detest for reasons outside of the actual idea of PvP or PvE. (For example, detest PvP due to unbalanced or overly competitive gameplay; hate PvE due to it being a boring grindfest or the A.I. being stupid and repetitive).
So how about a world where there is no PvP, there is no PvE, there is only the game. A living, breathing environment where the player makes decisions based on Risk vs Reward. A game where those who desire to play entirely in PvE can do so, while the PvPers get plenty of bait. This being done NOT through flags or on/off options, but through character creation and character development.
For example,
Faeries- These creatures are so pure, so peaceful, and so protected by the gods, even the demons who abhore the faeries dare not harm them. In reality, no player can attack Faeries (not allowed to PvP a faerie unless they attack you first, which is very limited.) With a love for all creation so deep they may even heal or support demons, or any other character, and still cannot be targeted. They have to do actual offensive damage to be targetable. Faeries partake in battle amongst the monsters and enemies of humanity, but are forbidden to touch any hero due to their belief in not altering the fate of the world.
Human- Neutral. Based on the player's faction choice, class choice, or something else, decides who can attack them (FFA PvP for them) and who cannot. Somewhere inbetween. Perhaps Humans are different than anyone else and have the Criminal System from UO. They can attack, but become evil if they murder innocents. They can steal, but freely killable if joining thieves guild. They are immune to being attacked by some, all, or none.
Demons- FFA PvP- This rare race comes at a cost: Anyone can attack them. They can attack anyone who participates in PvP or isn't immune to PvP. Can rage against anyone who attacks them first, and are built to play a bit defensive at first to compensate for the fact they cant attack some until they're attacked. Always (even in towns) can attack Angels, like a Guild war.
Elves- FFA PvP anywhere vs Orks, Goblins, and their faction allies. CANNOT attack other Elves due to their "good" nature.
Orks- FFA PvP anywhere vs Elves, Dwarves, and their faction allies. Can attack other Orks due to chaotic nature of their civilization.
Dragon- Wise, ancient creatures with lots of contacts throughout the world (or magic that lets them become aware of the world's affairs). Special quests can be taken by any player to hunt a dragon, but the player is made aware when they're in the zone with a hunter. Dragons are either 100% safe from PvP, or are FFA PvP with specific hunters. Other players cannot attack dragons because only Dragon hunters are brave (or stupid enough) to attack a dragon.
Faction/Guild Type (Church Faction like Paladins, Undead Guild, Guild vs Guild wars, etc.): Based on joining a faction or customized guild, it changes your alignment (Good, Neutral, Evil, Immune, FFA PvP, specific enemies, etc.) Perhaps you are a Paladin, so you're now FFA PvP vs all Undead. Perhaps you don't want that, and join a neutral Paladin faction which lets you be immune to PvP with weakened spells, or perhaps that transforms your class into a Warrior-Mage and you lose some of the healing/protection abilities. Perhaps you're undead, but become Redeemed and now FFA PvP vs other Undead. This only applies to SOME characters: All demons are still attackable by almost anyone, even if they turn good (or they can't turn good).
This is just a bunch of random ideas that can show how broad one can mold this world. Who you're able to have PvP with depends on adjustable variables (player WANTINg to PvP or WANTING to be immune to PvP) or are strictly defined based on Lore (Orks hate Elves).
This is a more organized world than Ultima Online's FFA PvP. There will be a lot of players who are friendly to you, and Faction/Lore will keep each "Zone" to be friendly to one faction or another. Although an Elf is never safe from an Orc, the Elf can play in Elf-Allied areas much more safely and still get the rush from running away from a PK (PvP). Orcs would play out a lot more like a barbarian civilization would, being able to have FFA PvP with one another. Have a problem? Become the leader by killing the current one.
There can be benefits (such as more or less power) to riskier gameplay types. Alternatively, there can be different playstyles based on type (Perhaps Faeries are great healers, but cant attack ANYONE or be attacked, but can support any character and still remain immune.)
IMO, this makes for a great world that is closer to Lore than others.
Comments
Played-Everything
Playing-LoL
not bad. I like how you actually tried to make it part of the gameplay. I also agree with your assessment. Most players nowadays like both pve and pve.
Many MMOs have done faction, but few have done alignment. Would be interesting to see how that adds to a game. Overall, though, a good post on accommodating the middle ground without trying to push people into playstyles they are otherwise not interested in.
Also, a good observation on gameplay preference and PUGs.
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 like this concept.
The only thing I'd change would be how the Fairies work. I like how they are supposed to be a purely PvE faction, but I don't think they should be able to engage in World PvP at all. Too many possible exploits with this.
Maybe allow them to participate in some structured PvP, but even allowing them to just heal in world PvP is asking for cheaters to abuse this.
My design actually includes a boat-load of races/factions, making it (IMO at least) even better. Why? With there being a ton of races/factions, the playerbase will be spread thin on how many of each race there is. If you're only enemies with a few races, you're relatively safe. For example, even if you're enemies against all Undead, the chances of an Undead being in your safer area (your race's home area) is low. The % of players that actually are Undead? Also low. This multiplies in favor of those who want to stay safe. Furthermore, with rewards for Undead players to attack certain races, quest in certain areas, or for the faction's chosen goals (picked by a PC or GM or Automatic NPC's Game. For example, one week the Vampires goal is to fill their blood banks with human blood, so there's large benefits to doing quests in the human area. This makes other anti-vampire races safer, and humans more dangerous.)
To help out due to complexity, the game UI could include a "Risk Level" which tells the player their current Risk level based on the zone, weekly ally/enemy goals, etc.
Of course, this game would have to be dynamic with the ability for "Zones" to change such as Keep Sieges in a very dynamic, ever-changing world influenced by the players.
Any design I have fits in with other things I have designed, so I will not speak of something unless I have thoroughly thought it through.
It's more like this I think.
|....[here]..................and.................[here].....[pure PVE players, a huge % of MMO players]|
100% PvPer ----------|---------------------- 100%PvEr
HATES PvE 50/50 Loves Both Equally DETESTS PvP
There are many many PVE players who will not participate in PVP no matter what the circumstances, that group is not a minority at all, I would dare to guess all groups being represented, the pure PVE players would make up the largest group of MMO players. It's apparent in EQ, EQ2, in WoW, in Rift, in Vanguard, SWG, PVE players dominate PVP numbers on every game when you start counting servers, and the majority of those do not engage in PVP nor wish to do so.
Trying to put pure PVE players on a server with PVP players is a recipe for disaster, even if PVE players are not forced to PVP, the communities differ and don't mix. That's why developer don't mix them and keep them seperate.
Nice post. I wish a game would be built upon this idea. I hate the mainstream idea now of instancing players off into their own subsections of the game.
Allowing open world PvP by making PvP flags tied to Race, Class, Faction, or a set of gear even is the immersive solution to PvP in a MMORPG.
Good points. I honestly just now came up with random concepts/ideas just to flesh out the idea. Any actual design based around this concept (which seems to be pretty popular, surprisingly) would need to be well thought out and Lore would take precedence over "balance". Perhaps some races are more powerful (Vampire/Demon?) or perhaps they arent and there is honestly only negative to playing them (Can be attacked by more people). Still, it would be interesting because even if it's *technically* riskier without benefits, some players may love being certain races for those very reasons.
I'd be incredibly interested in having Guilds / Factions (PC or NPC) which set weekly and monthly goals to alter the world in an ever-changing Game of Thrones for control over the dynamic Game World. Towns being taken over and an entire human NPC populous turning Undead. Unlockable monsters, items, quests- when a "zone" gets iced over by Frost Giant control. Sure, this would be strict and limited (Can't create entire zone graphics for every race or faction, if there are a lot of them, and content would need to be dynamically/automatically created since it would overload artists and programmers to do what would be a multiplying amount of content.)
Perhaps in a more MineCraft-type world where things change in simple ways, such as grass converts to ice tiles, or layers over it in graphics. Perhaps wheres broad, overarching factions (like a faction above a faction, such as Good vs. Evil, Dragonkin, Nature-based, or something akin to Heroes of Might and Magic themes) which allow races/factions to share graphics or building artwork. (For example, a Skeleton owned town would look the same as a Zombie or Vampire owned town. The NPC's would be a mix of Undead races but mostly the owner (Skeleton), Undead-Specific quests pop up, or something like that.) Perhaps each race/class/faction shares multiple characteristics (Undead + Demonic = Skeleton, Undead + Human = Zombie, etc.) and quests/items/special content appears based on each characteristic. This way, a Skeleton owned town would benefit ANY undead or demonic races/factions, and benefits Skeletons double.
I would have to disagree. If you ask PvE people if they've ever PvP'd, some will say "Sometimes I do for a few hours, maybe once a month."
You start going from 100% PvErs (detest PvP and NEVER play it) to 99%, 98%....now you're at 80%, etc.
It might be slanted towards a higher % of PvErs (in 70-90% range) than there are PvPers in that extreme range, but that doesn't mean most players fall somewhere closer to 50/50 or 40/60, 30/70. I have known plenty of PvErs who "occassionally try out PvP."
Also, you did not comment on one important note I made about my theory: Those who detest PvE or PvP to an extreme (ex. 90%-100%) may in reality do so NOT because of the IDEA, but because of the IMPLEMENTATION of the idea. I certainly do NOT have the same balance in every MMORPG. In a game like WoW, I am slanted much closer to the PvP extreme. In a game like Vanguard, PvE extreme. In a game like GW2, almost 50/50.
The implementation of the idea will have a heavier influence to people than the actual idea itself. My theory is that most people, in relation to the IDEA, lie closer to the middle than the extremes. Very few people lie to either extreme with the idea. That isn't to say that PvE isn't a boring grindfest with tons of 100% PvPers, or that there aren't millions of gamers who abhor most MMORPG PvP. The competitive nature of the PvP can also be a huge factor. When PvP is casual, you may see a lot more players participate than if it is seriously competitive like tPvP tournaments in GW2.
Fortunately for me, I have games like FFA PvP UO or Darkfall to show that a good portion of players enjoy battlegrounds due to their love for PvE. Yet these players make up millions upon millions of users in the battlegrounds, which is very casual.
How many times have you heard "I PvP whenever PvE gets a little stale and I need a short break. Then it's back to PvE for most of the time." These are people who are certainly not extremists. Even though they love PvE more than PvP, they (like most people) do not oppose entirely to the idea of PvP.
As long as the options for those who do not wish to PvP at all are there, there shouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, I do know some friends who would be opposed to it simply because they feel they should be allowed to play any Race, Class, Faction and not be 'forced' to PvP. This keeps an MMORPG from being designed fully immersive, to actually Roleplay.
For example, in a Star Wars setting such as SWG, walking about wearing Stormtrooper armor should logically flag you as an imperial. But as you said, I'm sure there were a lot of players that would want to go around in Stormtrooper armor and not be forced to PvP. (Disregarding the fact almost everyone just wore Composite Armor in SWG as it was the best...)
It would definately need to be designed from the ground up based around the idea though.
More ideas to chew on: What does it even MEAN to PvP?
Perhaps some races CAN attack anyone, but cannot actually kill a player. While races with a racial war CAN FFA full loot pvP their enemies.
For example, Vampires. These things need food by means of blood. Perhaps they can attack ANY character, but can't kill any. In the Lore, a vampire (unless evil aligned and faction altered) cannot kill anyone or else. Perhaps in the Lore a vampire taking the life of someone by hunger is an instant-death by the gods so they never kill (but can explainable kill in War or Defense). Or perhaps vampires can NEVER kill, and just drain.
So a vampire can attack ANYONE, but doesnt get to loot, doesnt get to kill, and when the character would normally die, they are simply stunned for 30 seconds at 1 HP, immune to all damage for 5 minutes, and slowly heal back to full life after 5 minutes.
The catch? Vampires HAVE to PvP to survive, or else they become weakened.
Or perhaps a vampire can "Drain Attack" anyone, but can only normally PvP based on the restrictions. For example, a Vampire may start with an ability "Suck Em!" and any combat after that leaves them stun drained and back to full life. This ability HAS to be used first to attack "innocents". If the vampire wants to do real, normal PvP, he can use regular attacks which kill as normal, but are target restricted as normal.
Example 2: A "Robber" class or character, who is a thief using violence. They can knock unconscious players and then loot them or perhaps only a few items, but cannot kill them. Then they have to run. This is due to the Lore where robbers knock out a target, grab something (but not everything) and then run before the law gets them. So based on the Lore and RP, a Robber only gets to take 1-3 items and then runs. Players dont die, dont suffer penalties, regain full life after the stun, and can even pursue the Robber if they didnt run away.
The Game Theory: Death is not a REQUIREMENT for winning or losing. Do people ALWAYS have to die and lose everything?
And when you log back in on your Werewolf you're not where you logged off at, next to a dead player, wondering what the hell happened!?
I'm all for it. EVE leveling while offline is nice, but PvP'ing while offline? That's what I'm talking about.
*Edit* Jokes aside, I like original ideas.
There are no problems usually, because the servers are seperated from each other. While some PVE servers in some games allow you to participate in arenas or battlegrounds, that world is seperated from the normal world.
The issue isn't just the gameplay, the issue and conflict stems from the difference in players. If you sweep a broad brush over PVE and PVP players I think you'll find PVP players to be a bit younger, a bit louder, more hackers and less prone to participate in roleplaying, PVE players tend to want to grind more and focus more on community over gameplay at times.
There are nice PVP players, but most PVE players don't want to deal with the griefers, the people who go out of their way to make your gameplay miserable, the players who will gank you in front of an NPC because they can, many PVP players show no respect towards other players.
Maybe my assumptions is wrong, but I think splitting the 2 communities is why it works currently because PVE and PVP are different communities and different type of players.
Hahaha, that's actually a cool idea :P
I'm all about Risk v. Reward.
Want to play a stronger Werewolf? Perhaps you have random Werewolf episodes that are less controlled. (Of course, an item or ability can help control it more.) You are a normal human (normal power) most of the time, but when werewolf you are stronger than other players. The penalty is randomly logging in to find yourself in different areas of the world, with some meat by your side. Don't want this? Log off with a collar on? lol.
Obviously everything needs playtesting, but all sorts of ideas can sound fun, and possibly even be designed around. Perhaps Dragons are ultimately powerful as Adult, but suffer permadeath and start as a baby.
In the end, you could always allow a player to do (most or ALL) that they want. Become an immortal dragon by sacrificing power to a god. Become an evil aligned Paladin with full healing spells due to a quest line you can do. Become PvP immune through a quest to become aligned with a peace god, etc. etc.
It all just depends on how much freedom / customization the developer wants to give the player.
This sounds like something you made up because it sounded good. Not something based in reality, with research backing it.
You know what else I've heard? African Americans are amazing athletes. Asians are good at math. White people eat Cheese. WoW gamers are virgins. Most people who PvE like the carebears. Most PvPers have small...wait what?
Do you know many PVP Roleplaying servers? It's not something I made up, PVP servers tend to be a minority in games and of those PVP servers usually none are RP servers.
I'm not disagreeing with anything your saying. I'm pretty sure I agree actually.
But the problem is just seperating the servers or instancing PvP isn't immersive. It isn't fitting with some kind of Lore or Roleplay in the world usually. And the PvP could just be pointless. That is the current problem in mainstream MMORPG's. Sure, it might be a immersive world for those that never want to PvP, or occassionaly hop in a Battleground, but it isn't for anyone who actually wants to be invovled in the world and PvP.
There has to be a way to design a game world built on choice, that allows players in the world to forsake PvP, while allowing those who wish to engage in it, and how often, an option. And actually make it meaningful, and to fit into the world. If we're just turning all MMORPG's PvP into lobby based PvP...it just fails really in my opinion. I'd much rather go play League of Legends.
Also, speaking of griefing, if I wanted I could still grief plenty even in a game such as Guild Wars 2. GW2 has to be one of the PvE friendliest, 'carebear' designed games recently. Yet training mobs on other players is something I do unintentionaly everywhere I run when I'm trying to avoid combat, especially in the higher level zones such as Orr.
I don't want to take it to far, but segregrating players may work...but where does this line of thinking stem from? Segregration isn't something we try to promote in real life. I don't think we should promote it in an MMORPG. Instead design rules and set up players to be safe from griefing and things of that nature. Not alllow those players to do it, or even give players the ability to discourage it, ban them from player shops/towns, et cetera.
Contrary to what you just stated...
http://www.wowwiki.com/RP-PvP
Your stereotypes are as accurate as saying "There is no one who plays PnP roleplaying games that ALSO enjoys PvP. All dungeon and dragon players are PVE-only."
We also PvP based on religion and military faction all throughout history, not just PvP killers. But yes, I didn't want to open up the whole this isn't real society.
Still, I believe an MMORPG could somehow, HOWEVER UNFEASIBLY, to those who detest it, have PvP in the ACTUAL WORLD, not an instance, and be meaningful. But if not, then no big deal, I'll just stick to games that I do enjoy outside of MMORPG's that have PvP.
It's not contrary to what I said, I'm fully aware there are PVP RP servers in WoW, but I doubt they are as prevalent as PVE RP servers. SWG has only PVE RP, Everquest has only PVE RP, Vanguard had only PVE RP at one point.
My point is, the communities differ, in more than just gameplay, and trying to bring two completely different communities together for whatever motive some PVP players have, is a recipe for disaster.
PvP can be fun but many do not want it.
How so? I game with real-life friends and ones I have met in many MMORPG's and they've all been quite diverse. Yet we all have agreed on a lot of MMO's lately that it isn't fun when we're split up. If I'm spending all my time in The Mists on GW2 I can't play with my friend who just doesn't want to commit all his time to un-meaningful PvP he doesn't find fun. Also, I'm not even finding it fun.
As a group, we played SWG the longest, where I met a lot of them. In SWG there was a simple flagging system, or the Bounty Hunting Jedi PvP (which there were some...flaws in that design), which many took part in which don't PvP in the lobby based PvP we have now. Or going around blowing up Faction Bases. Or simply me going with them while PvP flagged. We were able to play together.
I don't see it as a recipe for disaster. There I disagree with you. I don't think the communities are as polar opposites as you believe. Sure, in League of Legends, which I play a lot of lately, I see plenty of players whom are just...seemingly pitiful human beings in PvP. But it is an Esport. Which is what GW2 was aiming for when designing their structured PvP in their game.