Previous WuXia Discussions: - Magic and the Elements - Skills and Attributes I'm sure there have been many previous discussions on the Pros and Cons of implementing a "PvP+" or "Open PvP" system in MMORPGs. The main argument for it being that it is more "realistic" and fun, while the main argument against it is that it allows room for "griefing", or players killing/harassing other players for no particular reasons. What I'd like to do here is promote a discussion on, and perhaps begin a circulation of, ideas which are outside of the box that solve current issues by adding systems that compliment existing ones instead of restricting them. First, let us examine the nature of PvP in MMORPGs more closely. Why do players enjoy PvP, and why do they hate it? I believe the answer lies in the reasons they play the MMORPG to begin with. For an MMORPG, the strongest gameplay appeal is the ability for a player to take control of a character, and to develop this character from a lowly rabbit-hunter to a slayer of dragons. The allure of character development combines itself with a very strong but very chaotic social factor, and an MMORPG becomes a hugely addictive experience where thousands of players strive to distinguish themselves from others, to have their names known throughout the land and to have influence over the world. And this is where PvP comes in, for what better way is there to show the world your dominance, than to crush those weaker than you? At this point the culture, or mindset, of many players influences them to rebel against those who want to prove their power this way. This is the result of putting such a huge focus on Self-Improvement in a highly competitive and social environment, a rift is created between those who kill freely to assert their power, and those who strive to protect the innocent. It is in this phenomenon that I believe lies not only the flaws of existing PvP+ systems, but also the huge potential of PvP+ in delivering to players an experience that truly takes advantage of the MMO genre. In my opinion, one of the keys to creating the perfect PvP+ system is to allow the phenomenon I described above to happen freely. That is, instead of having "safe areas" or PvP zones, a kill anyone, anywhere system is implemented. PvP becomes a universal thing, an event that can happen at anytime and a variable that must be taken into account by players at all times. By making PvP such an iminent factor in the game world, there is a bigger focus on death, and more importantly on life. Players are forced to make their characters more well-rounded, and player power range is more easily balanced, while character builds created to "level up" in a certain way are less desirable. This not only makes PvP a feature as opposed to a perk, but it also solves the issue of player self-development in an environment of player competition. That is, you won't have players developing without interaction with others, and having the important higher level of power than that of other players when they do not even interact with each other. This is why I believe a PvP+ is fundamentally important to MMORPGs in general, and especially those with a pervading combat system (all MMORPGs in existence). Open PvP is the first step, the next step is balancing. In current PvP+ systems there are some pretty drastic measures taken to restrict players from going on killing sprees. The game that comes to mind is Lineage 2, where a karma system is used to punish players for commiting acts of murder. Unfortunately, the highly simplified system is abused and is the cause of more chaos than order. The key to balancing a PvP+ system, like I have stated above, is to allow players to self-regulate. Too often there is the application of an overly simplified good-evil balance, where morality and right/wrong are forced by the hand of God into an environment where not even the philosophies behind these systems apply. The best solution, and the only one in my mind, is moral ambiguity, and the allowance for players to punish/reward themselves. So instead of restricting players through unrealistic alignment systems, and instead of assuming that the good-evil balance is the prevailing and correct social-political philosophy, we allow the phenomenon of human social interaction to play itself out. For such a system to exist, there must be a few things in place. First, there must be an extensive system of non-combat oriented skills. These non-combat skills would preferably not relate to combat at all, but either way they must hold importance. The existence of the practitioners of these skills creates a subcommunity of non-combatants that puts a bigger focus on the lucrative nature of bothering them, and more importantly the need for their protection. So, the implementation of non-combat oriented skills actually promotes good reasons for combat. Off the top of my head, architecture, mini-games, weapon and armor smiths, food makers, merchants, pimps, etc. and systems such as resource harvesting or more complex trade systems. Second, there needs to exist a limited justice system, or governing system that is highly accessible by players. When players are able to put bounties on the heads of other players, or create laws for certain regions, then automatically you create a very interesting environment where almost anything can happen while a certain amount of order is maintained. Next, a sophisticated death system is required to make it not too tedious to players, but also to have enough weight that life becomes more valuable. A possible death system will be discussed in my next post. Finally, and most importantly of all, is an NPC system that integrates all of the above. To put it simply, there aren't the resources required to create a massively multiplayer world where all the levels of civilization are filled, nor are there players that would want to fill them all. NPCs must be developed to a level where they can understand the nature of the laws put down by players, and they must fill the roles that are the base for the operation of the world. Most importantly, this system of NPCs must be visible to players, and players must be able to interact with this system as much as possible. This kind of system is definitely within reach considering the technology we have today. Although the economic and practical nature of developing such a system is most likely not appealing to game-making businesses, I believe this is the next step for MMORPGs. OK, let's discuss!!

Nobody will play that game.

Perhaps a bit harsh, and perhaps more than a bit biased. It should at least promote discussion heh. Anyways, on to actual argument.

pg 1:

Another argument I've heard for PvP is that it allows "challenge" to the attacker. They often find that killing bots is an exercise in exploitation of a system rather than being 'skilled'. They also tend to enjoy the heartache and hurt meted upon actual humans.

pg 2:

While I mostly agree, there's a small point here which in practice has a humongous effect on PvP. In that race to distinguish themselves, a loss seems that much more powerful. Part of MMORPGs is that race to distinguishment. Players know that the path from rabbit killer to dragon slayer is available to them, if they simply play enough. This promotes people to play your game, because everyone wants to be a dragon slayer :]. PvP changes that though. A loss in PvP bumps a player down. It enforces their non-dragonslayer status, and now it's not just a matter of time, but of beating that other player. And MMORPGs as made will not allow the weaker player to beat the better. After all, the victor is now that much stronger, and the loser that much weaker from the loss. [unless there was no gain from PvP in which case you're just wasting people's time]

pg 3:

While I kind of agree that artificial safe zones are a detriment to PvP, there's big problems to that though. Two quick ones jump to mind. First, big baddies beating on newbs. This doesn't really apply to just newbs, but anywhere one character is so much more powerful than another to make the battle itself moot. At that point it's not PvP anymore, but just thievery, since the weaker player has no chance. Any artificial system to prevent this abuse is essentially a safe zone, and will lead to similar gameplay effects. Not having any system is asking for abuse and loss of playerbase. I am not of the opinion that player police work. People who want to kill others will. People who don't kill want to play the game, not babysit a bunch of PKers.

Secondly, the act of PvP itself is a griefing mechanism. It prevents character development. No, seriously. Characters generally level up [either as a player, or level up skills] by combat. If PvP provides no experience, then the PvP simply takes time. Time that's not spent developing the character, just defending yourself from someone who's already developed their character. If it -does- provide experience, then players will simply buy two accounts and have one character beat upon the other repeatedly to level up to level 999,999,999 and then wail on the rest of the world, defeating your entire goal of player interaction.

pg 4:

Indeed, balancing is immensely important. I am perhaps a bit more than skeptical that any MMORPG will be balanced. People are wily creatures. Unfortunately, there's far more to gain by being a killer than by being a policeman. And if there wasn't then you get a bunch of policemen who retire as far more powerful killers. Also, the vast majority of a MMORPG playerbase [statistically] don't want PvP. Would letting social forces control PvP allow for pervasive PvP described in pg 1? I doubt it.

pg 5:

Reliance upon other players just to be able to play the game is not desirable. This promotes people to not play the game. Making merchant people take combat skills to just defend themselves makes them worse fighters, leading back to the fact that losing PvP all the time is not fun. Fighting in PvP is character development time lost. Waiting around for protectors is not fun.


PvP in a persistant world hinders the main draw of the game, the ability to build a lasting character. Without that, people might as well be in a chat room. A bad chat room at that, since people can come along and mute [engage in pvp] them at any time.

Any system which 'forces' (your term) people to develop their characters in a certain way is never going to be 'the next step' because you immediately alienate all the people who simply have no interest in playing that way.

Placing the responsibility of policing the world on the players will only work if that is why they are playing the game. I was always partial to the Ultima Online system of highlighting a murderers name in red for a certain duration. Any players that saw red had an opportunity to flee or fight. The safe zones in the towns kept the peace. It was still hazardous to go out in the wilderness but isn't adventuring supposed to be hazardous?

Basicly set the guidlines of the world and pray the players don't destroy it too much. Any system will have flaws and grief players will exploit them no matter what we do.

There's a really simple (partial) answer to the problem of PvP and griefing: narrow the difference in power between low and high levels. If a player at level 100, which is the maximum level there is, is only 2 or 3 times stronger than a level 1 character, this means that who wins a fight depends a lot more on how many people are on each side. In a town, most people aren't skilled fighters, but 3 of them can take out any single uber character. Add to that the NPC guards, and it takes an army of griefers to overrun the town. And if that happens, well, the town is rightfully theirs :) Another plus is that power is more about how many people there are in your guild, than how many levels you have.

Telastyn, you bring up a lot of good points and I think they are all valid concerns. However, the changes I'm proposing are pretty drastic, and they really do move around the fundamentals of MMORPG design. The issues you bring up may be applicable to existing MMOs, but not necessarily an MMORPG with the features I talked about above.

For instance, in your reply to pg3 assumes that 1) In the MMORPG will exist a very broad range in player power, 2) That a system preventing abuse must be direct and arbitrary and 3) The character development system in place is linear. You have to understand that I don't view any existing MMORPGS as good models for PvP+ environments, and the ideas I'm putting forth are based on a lot of other changes as well. Currently, the purpose behind PvP usually holds little or no meaning, because of the types of character development in place PvP becomes, as you said, a tool for "griefing".

Anyways, your main argument, that PvP takes away from the main draw of MMORPGs, is a very strong one. It is true that PvP can in fact stand in the path of a a player developing his character and enjoying the game. However, this is where I believe a truly great potential lies. A concept in life, and one that I think is largely ignored in MMORPGs, is that in order to gain something great, you must work hard, and sometimes sacrifice. With sacrifice, the reward becomes more valuable. In most MMORPGs, a certain amount of "work" is required, but what is not represented is the complex forms that work can take, and the non-linear nature of striving towards a goal. Developing a lasting character may be the main draw of an MMORPG, but that is only true because that lasting character was created from hours of work (usually "grinding"), and that hard work has authenticity because there are thousands of others who must do the same and want the same. When the nature of the "work" required to attain something becomes more ambiguous, then the nature of the reward also becomes more ambiguous but also much more powerful. That is where I believe the next step is, and I believe PvP can be a big part of it.

=====

Kylotan, I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say, and most likely its my fault. When I say:

"Players are forced to make their characters more well-rounded, and player power range is more easily balanced, while character builds created to 'level up' in a certain way are less desirable."

I'm just trying to point out that "power-leveling" builds for certain characters become less desirable. For instance, lets create a hypothetical MMORPG situation where in a world there is monster X that grants Y amount of experience, which happens to be more than what monster Z grants. Let's say that this monster is especially weak to fire, and because of this a certain breed of "X-kiling Fire Mages" might be born, for the sole reason of leveling up faster. At the same time, players who don't use this build are at a disadvantage. This is a very specific example, and specialized character building pervades almost the entire MMORPG scene. What I'm saying is that a PvP+ system that is made together with a more universaly applicable combat system can in fact grant players more freedom in terms of character development as opposed to forcing them a certain way.

Also, just for fun, I'd like to start a little discussion about your general idea: "Any system which 'forces' (your term) people to develop their characters in a certain way is never going to be 'the next step' because you immediately alienate all the people who simply have no interest in playing that way."

Aren't all game systems created with the intention of forcing players to play a certain way? Do you think its possible to create a system that does not alienate a certain audience of players? Also, it seems there is a slight contradiction in this general theory, since in any game, the limited range of its design will always put restrictions on the player. Isn't it better to be aware of restrictions and to put down the right restrictions as opposed to simply lettings players do what they want? Another point I'd like to bring up is that it is not always a good idea to give in to what players want, especially when it comes to MMORPGs. People might say that the flaws of certain MMORPGs are PvP+ systems that alienate certain types of players, but the fact is a huge audience enjoys PvP+ environments. I do not believe in this theory. Simply because existing communities have been divided into opposing camps of "carebears" and "RPK groups" does not mean that the mindset of players will always follow a one-sided stereotype. In the end, I believe PvP will become integrated to MMORPGs as a part of the game, not a certain feature that makes or breaks a game. Your opinion, Kylotan?

======

Grellin GDU, I don't agree that designers should just set guidelines and blindly pray for something to work out, that is not just not how progress is made. On the matter of player policing, I do not believe it can work either... in the environments created by existing MMORPGs that is. I think there is a big potential for the concept of player police. Assuming that more systems such as bounties, territorial systems, NPC henchmen and armies can be implemented, and that these systems are based on realistic restrictions and social-political philosophies, then at minimum limited player justice system can be implemented with a high rate of success.

This is a good thread!.. please keep it going :)

Quote: Original post by Jotaf
There's a really simple (partial) answer to the problem of PvP and griefing: narrow the difference in power between low and high levels.

Ding ding ding ding!

You win!

If this whole PvP thing is going to work, you MUST be able to kill even the highest level characters with a swift single arrow in the back.

Shot by the lowest level character.

With a shitty bow.

and shitty arrow.

and no magical help.

Quote: Original post by PinFX
Grellin GDU, I don't agree that designers should just set guidelines and blindly pray for something to work out, that is not just not how progress is made. On the matter of player policing, I do not believe it can work either... in the environments created by existing MMORPGs that is. I think there is a big potential for the concept of player police. Assuming that more systems such as bounties, territorial systems, NPC henchmen and armies can be implemented, and that these systems are based on realistic restrictions and social-political philosophies, then at minimum limited player justice system can be implemented with a high rate of success.

I didn't say that it wasn't possible for something like that to work. The only way you could make a system like player policing would work in an online fantasy game is if the rewards for such action matched whatever they could find adventuring in the game which is why about 90% of people play those types of games. I have played Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, Everquest, T4C, and a few others that were basicly the same, and there has been one constant. There are players who enjoy playing games in ways they were never meant to be played. I don't believe there is a way to prevent someone from exploiting any game system given enough time and desire. To ask someone who may be paying a monthly fee to be the police instead of doing what they joined the game to do is unrealistic.

Now, I don't want to sound like, just becuase they are going to find a way to exploit the game so we shouldn't try to make it harder for them. Exactly the opposite. I believe a system that will force a player to live in the game by the decisions they make is a good thing. If there are actions that are socially unacceptable there should be some system within the game that will recognize that but I don't believe a player should be limited by their actions. If someone wants to be evil, let them. And let them deal with the world. The more opportunities there are for anti social behavior the more there will be. As long as there are a solid set of "world" rules, the players will play as they see fit and if someone exploits those rules what can you do? Really only one or two things, alter the rules and affect everyone, including those whom never broke the rules in the first place, or figure out how to single out those breaking the rules.

No matter what the system, there will never be an absolute answer. Good luck.

OK, lets say we take away monsters from the MMORPG design and there is ONLY PvP. It would probably be right to assume that a state of tyranny and chaos would erupt in the world. However, over time would order slowly be gained? Would empires rise and fall? Can anyone provide examples of how players will organize over time in PvP+ environments?