PvP vs. FvF

[Deyth]

Discuss.

[Texx]

A bit of both.

[Pup]

AC1 Darktide was the best PVP game I have played. It was one of those crazy accidents that worked.

I have been on a quest for a game that could replace AC1 ever since. Lots of problems to be sure, but still none better.

Some issues areas you talked about:

Ganking: Ganking makes you tougher as a player. Smarter and more knowledgeable about a game. One of the reasons I loved AC1 was the fact you had to "sweat it out" as you shopped.

Fights over too soon: AC1 had long fights. Longer than DAOC or WOW for sure. Yes you could have a Debuff, War Mage and Melee take out targets, but nothing on the speed of a DOAC gank-group. AC1 characters all had a way of doing damage and healing yourself. If you couldnt outrun someone it is because your character didnt have enough points in Quickness and Running (which you could add to every level while you were leveling). See a wall, you could jump over it and heal yourself if you built your character right (and the enemy didn’t).

AC1 had no guards- the towns that people needed to shop and the dungeons that people needed to level were all patrolled by the RPKs and Antis. Guilds had to police thier members to stop server wars between aligned guilds. Politics was everything. Alliances meant something and the memories of defending Stonehold, the Olithi or Tusker dungeons, and Dryreach are still fresh after 7+years as opposed to running around the Frontiers forgetting almost every fight :\

Guilds like The Dark Wolves would never last on Darktide- who can you grief? Either you were an RPK and people expected you to kill them, or you were an Anti and you would wipe the DW types out of a town if they ever showed up. People with dumb names like "Maxi-Pad the Red" were not allowed to walk around a town without an XP penalty and it was because of the players- there were no /appeals to resolve any player related issue.

[Deyth]

Originally Posted by Pup

AC1 Darktide was the best PVP game I have played. It was one of those crazy accidents that worked.

I have been on a quest for a game that could replace AC1 ever since. Lots of problems to be sure, but still none better.

Some issues areas you talked about:

Ganking: Ganking makes you tougher as a player. Smarter and more knowledgeable about a game. One of the reasons I loved AC1 was the fact you had to "sweat it out" as you shopped.

Fights over too soon: AC1 had long fights. Longer than DAOC or WOW for sure. Yes you could have a Debuff, War Mage and Melee take out targets, but nothing on the speed of a DOAC gank-group. AC1 characters all had a way of doing damage and healing yourself. If you couldnt outrun someone it is because your character didnt have enough points in Quickness and Running (which you could add to every level while you were leveling). See a wall, you could jump over it and heal yourself if you built your character right (and the enemy didn’t).

AC1 had no guards- the towns that people needed to shop and the dungeons that people needed to level were all patrolled by the RPKs and Antis. Guilds had to police thier members to stop server wars between aligned guilds. Politics was everything. Alliances meant something and the memories of defending Stonehold, the Olithi or Tusker dungeons, and Dryreach are still fresh after 7+years as opposed to running around the Frontiers forgetting almost every fight :\

Guilds like The Dark Wolves would never last on Darktide- who can you grief? Either you were an RPK and people expected you to kill them, or you were an Anti and you would wipe the DW types out of a town if they ever showed up. People with dumb names like "Maxi-Pad the Red" were not allowed to walk around a town without an XP penalty and it was because of the players- there were no /appeals to resolve any player related issue.

After a point ganking is a prohibitive effort. It stops people from wanting to play later on because they'll get ganked repeatedly by all the people who've reached the endgame. I'm not talking about a 50 waxing a 50 unexpectedly, I'm talking about a 50 raping a 5 on his way somewhere else.

[Niccoli]

I think if MMO's are ever going to be 'fun', they'll need real 'immersion'.

Typical Dev definition of immersion: If the graphics look stunning and it looks real, then its immersive. It just has to look good. If the combat/magic system works well (looks good) its immersive. etc.

They all seem to fall short of this, UO had it right, or close, I believe, but obviously didn't know it because they totally screwed the game with Trammel, etc.

For immersion, there has to be Complete Player Interaction (CPI). PvP, is what you can do with CPI. If I want to meet some guy, go hunt with him, then stab him in the back at the end of the night, then dammit the game should let me. WTF is up with "you cannot attack this target". I would really like to kill the guy stopping me...

Any time there is a 'restriction' forced upon you by the game and you cannot bypass it (not talking about hacking the game, but just doing actions a human could take) breaks immersion. Some act of a unknown god seems to stop you from attacking that guy who is running his mouth off, but since he's a human too, you just can't do a thing about it. There should be NO restrictions to your actions, there aren't in real life, and I find real life to be pretty damn immersive (give it a try sometime, it really is ).

Now, lets not confuse 'restrictions' with 'consequences'. There should be consequences. These could be part of the game, such as the way NPCs feel about you (if there are any). These could be just caused by killing the wrong guy, "I killed that guy but now his whole guild is out to get me". Consequences should be dynamic, not static. Just because I kill a guy, out in the middle of nowhere, doesn't mean every guard in the game should now think I'm a murderer. If I did it in front of some people/NPCs/whatever (that survive), then sure, it should effect how others think of you.

I believe the challenge that adding true dynamic consequences to a game is what stops developers. Too many variables, its too hard, lets just add some restrictions.

CPI is the most needed part of an MMO, COMPLETE, not partial player interaction. Partial interaction is what games like DAoC, WoW, and others with factions have given us. So that jackass on your side (but apparently doesn't feel that way) goes on being an ass with you being unable to truly punish them. It even goes so far that you might do what you can to punish them, but then suddenly you are a *gasp* 'griefer'. This is why there are these people. They don't have to suffer any 'consequences' for their actions. Oh, sure, they can't just randomly murder people, but they can do their best to be big pains in the ass.

Complete interaction can only come with a game that has no restrictions to your interaction. Want to go on a killing spree, play a serial killer, etc. Sure. But be ready to accept the consequences of your actions.

With CPI will their be griefing, sure. But at least you have the option to at least TRY to do something about it.
Will there be ganking, sure. But again, make friends, join a guild, there is always some safety in numbers (assuming your numbers are higher and you aren't completely skill-less).
Can a game like this be fun, hell yes. Nothing beats the adrenaline rush of a game where you don't know what that guy you just ran into is going to do.

Another thing, for another discussion really, is 'easy mode'. Games have become more and more 'easy'. I won't go far into this other to say that 'easy mode' for developers in regards to player interaction is first PvE only, next RvR. Easy mode sucks, easy mode gets boring really fast. Its like using cheat codes in a game, any challenge that actually made the game fun quickly disappears...

PvP, which naturally comes with complete player interaction is the way to go.

[Niccoli]

Originally Posted by Deyth

After a point ganking is a prohibitive effort. It stops people from wanting to play later on because they'll get ganked repeatedly by all the people who've reached the endgame. I'm not talking about a 50 waxing a 50 unexpectedly, I'm talking about a 50 raping a 5 on his way somewhere else.

This brings up something I forgot, the problem with level based games. Ganking, in the form most games have, is based on the weak getting molested by the strong. Level based games only promote this. Most even let you know they player is extremely weak so there isn't even a risk that they aren't.
con systems = easy mode = suck

IF a game has to have 'levels' then it should be in such a way that the character you play does not become more 'powerful' but has more options. A good example, although not an mmo'RPG' is Planetside. A level 1 can kill a level 20 just as easy as another level 20 can. But the level 20s have tons more options of how they play the game. However, I still think levels are a waste and too artificial. (I've killed more rats than you so I'm better, who cares if you are smarter about it, I killed more so there. :P )

Skill based systems (characters improve with skill use, are a lot closer to getting away from the power disparity than level systems are. I've been using x skill longer than you, so I should be better. This is ok, though this skill shouldn't be such a factor to make you a god among mere mortals...

Pure skill, or player skill ultimately should be the deciding factor. The weak should have a chance of defeating the powerful, in a level based MMORPG, this has NEVER the case.

Higher level = Higher power, this formula just plain sucks.

EDIT: End game, why do games have to have this. I mean really, the end game in most cases is just that. I'm at the end, I'm done. Whats the next game...

[Kommendix]

Ever since UO mmorpg:s have been gettin worse and worse pvpwise. New mmorpg:s just gets easier and easier, the difference between a good and an awesome player are limited down to almost nothing because the lack of diversity ie "uber" speccs. Also PvP games has turned down to unlimited time sinks; your "skill" will not decide the outcome of a battle the time you have spent gearing up your character will. The FvF games has turned down to; whoever brings the most people to battle wins.

In UO you had a limited chance to communicate on a large scale. This meant that you didn't have any "zergs" simply because you didn't "know" enough people or you couldn't easily round them up. UO was also extremely balanced, for example fights between a melee oriented and a caster oriented character could go on for minutes. Add to this that gear basically meant nothing and even if you brought your top equipment (wich you could aquire quite easily compared to todays standards) there was always the chance that you could lose it all if you died. Ganking, or I would not want to call it ganking but rather PK:ing cause the loss if you lost as a PK was total, in UO was chaotic but atleast if someone PK:ed to many and turned a murderer you as the one murdered could find some comfort in that if this guy ever dies hes finished. Everything that had to do with PvE in UO was possible to do solo.

In todays mmorpg:s it's impossible to achieve anything alone. Great socializing systems makes it easy to find and get to learn new people. The solo aspects of the games are slim to none wich also means everyone has an interest in getting to know and find new people. You must spend alot of time to get your character ready for battle, this all boils down to that players mindset have changed from playing for fun or competition into playing for winning. You do not care how you win as long as you win it's all ok.

[Skawn]

PvP doesn't mean that it's free for all PvP though.

Player vs Player means that there is an opportunity to attack other players and encompases the various ways this has been implemented, whether that is L2/shadowbane style total free for all or DAoC or WoW type factional based combat.

Personally, the most important thing for me isn't whether PvP is FFA or RvR.

The most important thing is that it is goal driven. The reason I still play DAoC and dislike WoW and SWG is that in the latter two games there was no real reason to fight the other factions - you could fight in the battlegrounds all day but you'd never make any impact on the world.

In DAoC (RvR) you can capture keeps and more importantly enemy relics which enhance the power of your realm and you gain skills from PvPing.

Neocron (FFA PvP), for all it's faults and bugs, had outposts which could be captured which gave the owning clan bonuses to crafting or combat etc.

The reason these were games I wanted to play wasn't because of the underlying game system dictating WHO I could fight, but the game system which gave me the REASON to fight.

[Kommendix]

I will always prefer PvP, as Deyth describes it, over FvF. FvF is just exactly what Deyth says a sorry excuse for not being able to balance PvP and a welfare system for bad players.

[Deyth]

Originally Posted by Niccoli

This brings up something I forgot, the problem with level based games. Ganking, in the form most games have, is based on the weak getting molested by the strong. Level based games only promote this. Most even let you know they player is extremely weak so there isn't even a risk that they aren't.
con systems = easy mode = suck

IF a game has to have 'levels' then it should be in such a way that the character you play does not become more 'powerful' but has more options. A good example, although not an mmo'RPG' is Planetside. A level 1 can kill a level 20 just as easy as another level 20 can. But the level 20s have tons more options of how they play the game. However, I still think levels are a waste and too artificial. (I've killed more rats than you so I'm better, who cares if you are smarter about it, I killed more so there. :P )

Skill based systems (characters improve with skill use, are a lot closer to getting away from the power disparity than level systems are. I've been using x skill longer than you, so I should be better. This is ok, though this skill shouldn't be such a factor to make you a god among mere mortals...

Pure skill, or player skill ultimately should be the deciding factor. The weak should have a chance of defeating the powerful, in a level based MMORPG, this has NEVER the case.

Higher level = Higher power, this formula just plain sucks.

EDIT: End game, why do games have to have this. I mean really, the end game in most cases is just that. I'm at the end, I'm done. Whats the next game...

Whether it be more options, more levels, or more developed skills, one person will have an easier time killing the other.

[Deyth]

Originally Posted by Skawn

PvP doesn't mean that it's free for all PvP though.

Player vs Player means that there is an opportunity to attack other players and encompases the various ways this has been implemented, whether that is L2/shadowbane style total free for all or DAoC or WoW type factional based combat.

Personally, the most important thing for me isn't whether PvP is FFA or RvR.

The most important thing is that it is goal driven. The reason I still play DAoC and dislike WoW and SWG is that in the latter two games there was no real reason to fight the other factions - you could fight in the battlegrounds all day but you'd never make any impact on the world.

In DAoC (RvR) you can capture keeps and more importantly enemy relics which enhance the power of your realm and you gain skills from PvPing.

Neocron (FFA PvP), for all it's faults and bugs, had outposts which could be captured which gave the owning clan bonuses to crafting or combat etc.

The reason these were games I wanted to play wasn't because of the underlying game system dictating WHO I could fight, but the game system which gave me the REASON to fight.

FvF (which is what I should've used instead of RvR), supercedes PvP and so I don't consider it PvP anymore.

DAoC's goals were boring and too limited when it came to player conflict.

[ShortBus]

There has to be a point to the PvP. RvR it is much easier to develop a point to Player conflict without completely screwing over the game.

Most games focus on the rewards (which I think is a good thing), but to me there also have to be penalties for sucking. Not completely harsh ones, but if you get your ass kicked all the time your character shouldn't just stay the same. It should degrade in some way. And no, not getting the rewards is not a real penalty. RvR doesn't really enforce any penalties aside from not getting rewards and is nowhere near as exciting or fun to me.

As for the three months and out syndrome, I would say that's more related to the guilds than the games. Almost nobody likes losing and no matter who you are, if you stay in a game long enough you will inevitably lose. Its much easier to hop from game to game, prepping for the release in beta, learning everything about the game, then playing 50 hours a week to get ahead of the majority of the population, then leave once you reach that point and move onto the next game than it is to stay in that game and fight it out with the competition.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Deyth

After a point ganking is a prohibitive effort. It stops people from wanting to play later on because they'll get ganked repeatedly by all the people who've reached the endgame. I'm not talking about a 50 waxing a 50 unexpectedly, I'm talking about a 50 raping a 5 on his way somewhere else.

The thing is in AC1 the "end game" was so far away. Level 160, even with an uber pyramid vassal scheme was a good 8 or 9 months down the road. For most it took years or no one ever got there. I think my max level was 80 and I could handle level 100 characters because the fights were so long and it was a bit of a skill/twitch game.

Also, there is only so much fun in "ganking n00bs" in AC. They dont drop much for sure- so you only really hoped they would call in friends for a fight. We used to patrol the noobie spawns and try to protect them from the lame RPKs that thought it was fun, but those areas were more just of a FPS area for carebears that wanted to come to the PVP server and mess around for 10 or so levels.

RPKs were much better off hitting dungeons or higher level towns- you still get a battle on your own terms (you are fully buffed, and they are probably burdened, shopping, fighting a monster, whatever). RPKs or Antis would really just try to hold key towns (Key because of portal drops/ties or lifestones) or symbolic towns - the towns that PRX and TAO and a number of other guilds held was more of an "out of the way" place that had good mid-level dungeons.

[Finideach]

(cut n' pste from the DNL thread that started this editorial)

Perhaps a better analogy might be that FFA PvP is a totally unrestricted unregulated free market. Problems within the playing population are sorted out within the "market" but there's no guarantee that the way they're sorted will be to your liking. PvE only is a totally regulated market - the population has no way, other than to appeal to GM's (the regulators), of resolving player vs. player issues. The market doesn't decide - central planning does.

Variations like RvR or FvF are variations that combine elements from both. I played Sullon Zek alot back when it was available on EQ1 - aside from that your diety selection determined your faction it was entirely unregulated - you could have a 60th level DE rampaging through the newbie grounds of Faydark and the only way to resolve that was to get enough allies to chase them off. Classic DAoC on the other hand is a slightly more regulated version of the mix - there are safe areas and there are areas that, once you go into, you know you're in a more unregulated environment where you can be exposed to risk. Planetside - it was RvR with the added benefit you could still shoot and kill your allies (by accident/on purpose let the crowd decide).

Economists and politicans have been arguing which is better: free market, centrally planned or mixed for a long time. I don't expect we'll get to any more consensus on MMORPG boards than they have debating it professionally full time for decades. However, the current analysis is that mixed markets tend to be the most successful/stable - whether it's a free market that has more regulations (European), a free market with less regulation (Carribean Isalnds) or somewhere in the middle (US).

When it comes to FFA PvP where you're standing matters to your persepctive. In the 1900's it was great to be a capitalist, it sucked to be the worker slogging in the factory 18hours a day. In totally unrestricted PvP a lot of the same happens - especially in MMORPGs, the firstest with the mostests (i.e. the capitalists who have raised the ventrue capital and have the economy of scale) end up winning becuase it's an accumulation of resources (XP/Gear) that enables the skill players have to show themselvs. In games like HALO there's really not that much accumulation to go around - so skill matters a lot more. PvE has no risk of such segmentation - anyone can get the goods as long as they work at it. But there's no *opportunity* to really differentiate yourself from everyone else. That's the rub that PvPers find with PvE.

Personally I find the RvR and FvF models to be some of the most challenging - though for different reasons than FFA PvPers would. I don't know if there were ever several hundred on several hundred extended campaigns on PvP servers organized by their parties - most of what I saw was small group (sub 20) or less fight on fight. There was an organizational aspect to running effective DAoC campaigns to take keeps in multiple realms that was a good challenge - until server pop imbalances made it very difficult and TOA just about killed the whole franchise. But I also understand that's me, and may not be others.

I'm looking forward to DnL (I won't give my % of a successful release, I haven't seen enough to make a judgement) because it is another variant of the "mixed economy". You have RvR, restrictions on some ganking (divine intervention) which I'm not sure I like (have to see implemented) - but it may also allow competition in other avenues as well. It all depends on implementation - I think having an option wherein Baronies can declare war on fellow aligned Baronies (perhaps a Guild PvP flag variant) might add some spice. You can have competition within the alignment and the risk is the opposing alignment will take advantage of the divsion to roll you all. /shrugs. A lot of it depends on implementation.

But free market, centrally planned market and mixed markets - you'll never find a common ground for agreement but my only reccomendation is that people realize all have different pros/cons and understand where other folks are coming from. It's easy for to call PvEers pussies or PvPers 14year olds with nothing better to do - both generalizations are equally wrong.

My 2 cents.

[Deyth]

So far I've been threatened with a ban on the Vault, had all my posts removed, and had my signature altered even further by a nazi mod there. I also had a DnL mod tell me to change my signature and quoted TOS that didn't forbid it so the fucker actually had the balls to say he's changing the TOS just to make my Vote Libertarian sig illegal. I am honored.

The DnL fanbois flipped on the article here.

Another one on the DF forum.

[Deyth]

Originally Posted by ShortBus

There has to be a point to the PvP. RvR it is much easier to develop a point to Player conflict without completely screwing over the game.

Most games focus on the rewards (which I think is a good thing), but to me there also have to be penalties for sucking. Not completely harsh ones, but if you get your ass kicked all the time your character shouldn't just stay the same. It should degrade in some way. And no, not getting the rewards is not a real penalty. RvR doesn't really enforce any penalties aside from not getting rewards and is nowhere near as exciting or fun to me.

As for the three months and out syndrome, I would say that's more related to the guilds than the games. Almost nobody likes losing and no matter who you are, if you stay in a game long enough you will inevitably lose. Its much easier to hop from game to game, prepping for the release in beta, learning everything about the game, then playing 50 hours a week to get ahead of the majority of the population, then leave once you reach that point and move onto the next game than it is to stay in that game and fight it out with the competition.

That was my point, they went to FvF because PvP was harder to do.

I agree there need to be penalties.

Guilds don't leave out of fear, that's a stupid statement. Guilds aren't obligated to stick around for another 6 months of not having fun just to give latecomers a shot at them.

[Damelon]

I've got to agree with Nic.. the less restrictions the better. When people talking about "Goals", they should not be imposed by the game. Goals are determined by individuals or a group depending on their needs. Like you said, look at real life. No restrictions, only consequences. Someone can go kill their neighbor if they want. What's the goal? None. They could take everything in his house and move it into theirs. They get more stuff. Is this my cup of tea? No. But some people do it. Consequences? Hell ya, if someone finds out they get the death penalty or jailed, etc. But the goal for that particular person was his own, he either was crazy, or hated his neighbor, or just wanted his stuff. Then there are larger scale wars. People fight in groups because they like the odds, or want to overthrow a government, or just want to increase their land, etc. If I am a crafter, and I need wood, I want to be able to chop down a tree. If a guy picks up my magic sword and wont give it back, I want to be able to do something about it. More options + less restrictions = The Win.

[ShortBus]

1. The boards ate my first post so Deyth had to spit it back out I guess T.T At least he gets feeling of saying something very intelligent for once ^_^

2. Anyone that calls a game a "PvP game" when you are physically restricted by game mechanics from attacking other players is a complete retard. That is not a PvP game. Restricting PvP combat based on safe zones and to a degree possibly even levels, etc. yeah that CAN still be in what I would call a PvP game. Restricting combat by not allowing me to kill a complete idiot just because hes "on my side" is not part of a PvP game. That's one reason I draw a distinction between FvF and PvP. Is it possible for FvF to still be a PvP game? Yes, but usually on special ruleset servers specifically designed for this, NOT on the servers running the original ruleset and what the game was initially designed for. Is it possible for a PvP game to have FvF fighting? Yes. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Niccoli]

Originally Posted by Deyth

Whether it be more options, more levels, or more developed skills, one person will have an easier time killing the other.

True. I guess more the point was this is most obvious in level based systems, as all level based systems seem to add the 'con' feature to the game. "Oh hey, look, he's grey to me, easy prey."

As opposed to UO, "I think I'll attack that guy, I bet I can take him", then a few minutes later "OOooOooo OOOooOoOooo OOO".

At least in a skill based, or more options based, the lower end guy has a chance to win. In a level based system (level=power), so far a game hasn't made it so the other has a chance.

[Deyth]

Originally Posted by Damelon

More options + less restrictions = The Win.

Exactly right and also the hardest to do.

Originally Posted by ShortBus

1. The boards ate my first post so Deyth had to spit it back out I guess T.T At least he gets feeling of saying something very intelligent for once ^_^

2. Anyone that calls a game a "PvP game" when you are physically restricted by game mechanics from attacking other players is a complete retard. That is not a PvP game. Restricting PvP combat based on safe zones and to a degree possibly even levels, etc. yeah that CAN still be in what I would call a PvP game. Restricting combat by not allowing me to kill a complete idiot just because hes "on my side" is not part of a PvP game. That's one reason I draw a distinction between FvF and PvP. Is it possible for FvF to still be a PvP game? Yes, but usually on special ruleset servers specifically designed for this, NOT on the servers running the original ruleset and what the game was initially designed for. Is it possible for a PvP game to have FvF fighting? Yes. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Actually I replied to that post but it seems to be missing. Must be a bug with the new board version. I edited my answer back in.

We're not talking about restricting attacks, we're talking about penalizing them which creates a proper balance.

Originally Posted by Niccoli

True. I guess more the point was this is most obvious in level based systems, as all level based systems seem to add the 'con' feature to the game. "Oh hey, look, he's grey to me, easy prey."

As opposed to UO, "I think I'll attack that guy, I bet I can take him", then a few minutes later "OOooOooo OOOooOoOooo OOO".

At least in a skill based, or more options based, the lower end guy has a chance to win. In a level based system (level=power), so far a game hasn't made it so the other has a chance.

I agree.