I'm no big fan of MMORPGs (I got turned off to the genre from playing Lineage II and watching friends play Lineage, Everquest, and Star Wars Galaxies), but in my short time playing I got extremely bored with the play mechanics. It seemed like all I was doing was clicking on monsters...over and over and over. There was no element of tactical combat at all. I figured, "hey, maybe it's just because I'm just starting". I was wrong. The higher level monsters were just as stupid (bad AI) and repetitive as the lower level monsters. So it got me thinking...why not just eliminate monsters all together? In most games I've played, playing against the CPU is easier and more boring than playing against an actual person. What would be the design issues/flaws in creating an MMORPG that was entirely PvP? Also, in this entirely PvP world, how would you change the battle mechanics so that it takes more skill, instead of a game of "who has the highest stats?". I play console tactical RPGs more than anything, and I've always thought that an online version of FF tactics or Front Mission would be great. Of course, there are huge design problems with that as well...

Ultima Online was originally all PvP, Shadowbane was designed with the specific intention of being "PvP done right", the end game of Dark Age of Camalot is PvP, Star Wars Galaxies is PvP if you choose to take sides on the rebel/empire war, Lineage (the first one, I don't know about the second) is entirely PvP I believe.

Virtually every game that is primarily PvE oriented has special servers that are for PvP people.

Whether PvP is a good thing or not is a *huge* religious issue to MMORPG players that you can easily see pretty much anywhere. If you look at what people do given a choice of PvP or not the *vast* majority choose not to partake of non-consentual PvP (i.e. PvP without controls that require each side to accept). The PvP crowd however is very, very, very vocal so despite thier small size they manage to keep getting developers to at least try to cater to them. The non-PvP crowd point out that PvP tends to be dominated by gankers (those that jump you when you're already down and/or prey on lower level people) and cheaters.

IMHO PvP will never work in a traditional RPG model. Firstly an RPG is about developing your character, not yourself, PvP on the other hand is about the player skill. Secondly virtually every RPG has a power curve that makes PvP absurd (the level one newbie has *zero* chance against the level 100 uber even if he catches him flat footed in the most ideal circumstances). You can eliminate the power curve but now you're back to not being an RPG anymore or at the very least you've removed incentive for people to keep playing - with no power curve you can't improve your character.

Quote: Original post by KevinG
Also, in this entirely PvP world, how would you change the battle mechanics so that it takes more skill, instead of a game of "who has the highest stats?".

it's not an RPG anymore then, IMHO.

although i would love to have something more tactical than selecting an enemy and waiting for one of you to die, and maybe casting a spell every once in a while.

like mortal kombat online??

Ultima Online, in the very begining (before they took away notoriety and you lost stats if you were a "murderer"), was probably the most fun ive ever had in my life. seriously, that probably sounds pathetic, but i had more fun playing that game then any other game ive ever played in my whole life, by far...

the thing is, the average nerd who plays an MMORPG is one of those pansies who thinks "i dont want to get hurt! dont take my armor! i dont want to be attacked!".. basically, there all a bunch of wusses who would rather slay monsters then kill other people. IMO, theres nothing fun about killing monsters. if i wanted to kill NPC's, why the hell am i paying 15$ a month to play with thousands of other people? the whole point is human interaction, and KILLING those humans is the most fun of anything.. (i could kill NPC's without the internet..)

i played Ashersons Call on the darktide server when that game first came out.. a lot of fun, too, at least for awhile.. still not as great as UO PvP.. i also played Shadowbane, who's fun lasted even a smaller amount of time.. really disapointing, because that game was made for PvP, but it just sucked, the end game was extremely boring and slow...

IMO, PvP is the most fun aspect of an online game, weather it be an FPS or a MMORPG...

Quote: Original post by Anon Mike

IMHO PvP will never work in a traditional RPG model. Firstly an RPG is about developing your character, not yourself, PvP on the other hand is about the player skill. Secondly virtually every RPG has a power curve that makes PvP absurd (the level one newbie has *zero* chance against the level 100 uber even if he catches him flat footed in the most ideal circumstances). You can eliminate the power curve but now you're back to not being an RPG anymore or at the very least you've removed incentive for people to keep playing - with no power curve you can't improve your character.

But if you can eliminate the power curve you can replace it with something else--as long as the incentive is there. For example, at certain level intervals you get certain abilities and priveleges that lower level people dont get. For example, at level 20 you can build a house in town, at level 25 you can buy a horse and carraige to make transportation easier,at level 30 you can build a castle, at level 50 you can become a government official of the town area and make decisions that affect the town as a whole,etc. Then you'd have a server of people interacting with each other, building towns and buildings and racing to best each other's "empires", instead of impersonal fighting of monsters.

Also, most skills would only be accessible at certain levels...Of course, there would be a small HP/stat bonus for each level increase, but with a little know how and luck, a group of level 10 characters could kill a level 30 character.

Or would most MMORPGers not want to trade stats for priveleges? (I've only played/seen a few, and apparently those are the ones that suck).

Quote: Original post by Anon Mike
Ultima Online was originally all PvP

Not entirely true... just because you were technically able to kill anybody, doesn't mean it was 'all PvP'. There were always plenty of monsters, but they just didn't want to put in any arbitrary killing restrictions.

The problem is when you get a lot of people like graveyard filla (above), who want to enjoy all the fun of killing others. Nobody likes to be arbitrarily beaten, so when you get a lot of people with that mentality in such a game, and a large number of people are dying over and over again to entertain a minority, it ruins it for those who want to enjoy the other aspects of the game.

Well this is an issue I've often pondered upon myself. I wonder if it is possible to cater to both crowds of players at the same time?

Ok, so take the PvP people, they are willing to fight anyone, any time, so allow them freedom to fight any other PvP person whenever they desire.

The non PvP people, on the assumption they are the majority, want something else to keep them entertained, but with the option of PvP should they desire it. I suggest allowing them to set an option (made very prominant so it cant be forgotten) that allows them to participate in PvP when they feel like it (in a dual) but makes them immune to PvP people when set to off.

This is pretty much how it works in EQ and the like anyways. So lets take a look at what turns non PvP people away from PvP action. I believe it is due to the following reasons:

No reward for a kill other than personal satisfaction,
Griefers abusing the system,
Steep power curve makes it obvious who will be victorious,
Character skill vs Player skill issues

there may be others I have missed, but I'll break down the ones I have thus far.

Rewards

I believe that people would be interested in PvP if they were rewarded for their actions. I actually like the suggestion of being able to steal a losers items, but I think it would probably be abused by griefers. I think that the rewards need to be something that progress the character, but not at the expence of the loser, otherwise you are imposing penalties, which may push people away from the game. Perhaps PvP could keep a track of wins (though not losses) and unlock quests as your combat reputation increases, perhaps it would allow you to collect items for a certain number of wins. Perhaps you could allow looting of players, but consider it dishonourable, and have a penalty imposed if you loot too much, too often.

Griefers

I imagine that a system of allowing/disallowing PvP would help combat griefers, though perhaps special PvP only maps would be necessary to stop players going nonPvP and scouting territory for the PvP people. I'm not going to go too much further into this one as I think it is a whole topic in itself which has been covered many times.

Steep power curve

I like the suggestion of a shallower curve, along with alternative rewards, I think this could work, let players get a little bit better with each level, but give them really interesting non-combat rewards and perhaps more tactical options, not necessarily stronger combat skills, but more of them making them more flexible, but not unbeatable.

Player skill vs Character skill

Similar to the PvP on or off option, I think a player skill / character skill option could be implemented. Allow players the option of relying on stats or their own skill, but give them the option to only fight against others using the same option setting if they prefer that. Though this system is getting a little complex, as I imagine players will be wondering who exactly they can and can't fight at this point, it could be made simple by putting names of valid opponents in one colour, and names of invalid targets in another colour, or something to that effect.


So I think my answer in general to this thread is to allow the player the option to play the game in the way they desire, not choosing one method and sticking with that, as I'm sure someone will be unhappy if they aren't catered for.

[ edit: wow. flame on, squirm. must have been a bad day. ]

My biggest, by far and away, issue with MMORPGs is that the ability of a player is determined not by his or her individual skill, but by how long they've spent playing. I know that isn't 100% true, but it's close enough. A huge number of people like this. I think it's some sort of fear of loosing.

If you want to play a game where you build up a character by clicking on monsters a lot, play MMORPGs. If you want to play a game against other players, pick another genre. Seriously. What can you possibly do with an MMORPG that would make PvP a sensible way to play, which wouldn't mean it was yet another FPS with a ladder? Getting a house if you reach position 1000 on the ladder doesn't really answer the underlying issue.

There are online, web based, excessively simple mmorpgs, which are entirely PvP. They address the balance issue by not allowing you to attack lower level players. With the exception of immense groups of people getting together to bully everyone else, there is nothing a skilled player can do that couldn't be achieved by a few dozen lines of perl script.

[ One thing which did occur to me once was, instead of a character getting more powerful, they become less balanced. You start out as a generic bod with a sharp stick, and as you progress you can sacrifice, say, your ability to run quite so fast, for a much sharper stick. This means you get to customize a character to your own personal style, but are still in for a real fight against a complete beginner who knows what they are doing. ]

Mephs, everything you've suggested has been tried at least somewhat.

Option for allowing PvP - this is commonly called a "PvP switch". The problem is that virtually nobody turns it on. PvP people then complain that they can't attack anybody they want. If you do something that encourages people to have PvP on then the non-PvP people complain that they are forced into PvP to progress.

Virtually all PvP games have some sort of leaderboard system. Some even give perks to the people/teams at the top. This is nice for the PvP people I suppose but it's irrelevant to the PvP/non-PvP debate.

Griefers - you can't stop griefers. Thier whole reason for existing is to get around any controls you put in the system. Plus every control you put in gets in the way of open-ended PvP and the whining begins anew.

Power Curve - yeah you can flatten the power curve but that takes away from one of the rewards for progressing. If you flatten it completely you end with an overly-complicated FPS. Maybe there's a happy medium but I doubt it.

Skill bases - this is actually something I've never heard before but when you get down to it it's just another form of PvP switch with all the same inherent problems.


And non-PvP people don't dislike PvP because of the player interaction, they dislike it because it's *forced* on to them, as often as not at the worst possible time by some ganker looking for an easy kill. I played UO in it's original form and tried EQ on one of the PvP servers very briefly. Never, not once, did I ever have a PvP encounter with somebody that was not using grief tactics. Every single time it was somebody who was much, much stronger me than me, packs of PvP'ers attacking people 3 or 4 (or more) to 1, or somebody one-shotting me from hiding after a close encounter with something/someone else. That's not fun, it's just stupid.