I've played two large MMO's in my gaming career, I spent about 3 years in Ultima Online and 3 years in Shadowbane. In the beginning, Ultima Online was player driven, there was tons of content sure, but the whole system was based on the fact that players will police themselves. It was good, but the developers finally caved to all the whiny little brats complaining they get pk'd, and invented a policed facet, and soon they all turned that way. Shadowbane was the next MMO, I believe this MMO was directly targeted at the UO population that hated this idea of policing players. They did a great job, and still are. The Idea is this: In a system of PURELY open PVP, can you trust players to keep the game playable? My answer would be yes, you just have to incorporate the right features. After 6 years of playing MMO's trying to accomplish this task, I believe I could design the perfect player driven community. Features NEEDED: PURELY Open PVP Guild System City building system tied to guilds Things to fight over (resources, land, kingdoms) Reasons to not fight (NOT RESTRICTIONS!) Now lets start the splainin! Purely open PVP, why? We want Johnny to be able to kill Bobby if he pisses him off. We want joe to be able to claim his bad guy spawn by force. Guild System, why? You need to unite players who have a common goal, be it survival, money, pure unadulterated pvp, etc.. City System, huh? Players need something to do in their guild, besides just, being in a guild. If guilds need a common goal, what better than to pull resources together and build a freakin huge stronghold? Things to fight over, like what? Lets see, what If I were to tell you, that after a month of building your city, it could be threatened by the douche bag down the street (guild of 200 people).. Yes, thats right, your creations can be destroyed! How about resources, your guild needs resources, so does his guild, you have to either work it out, or fight to the death to control resource deposits! And howabout this, Your name on the world map? YOUR kingdom, your guild! Theres your daily dose of e-peen right there. Now finally, you need reasons to not bash each others brains in. Well, I already gave you one huge reason not to fight, you could lose your guild city (which btw, took millions of gold and a month to build!)... Lets talk about the more personal level, what is stopping you from bashing bobbies brains out because he is at your spawn? Well, on a physical level, nothing, but think about politics. Bobby is in Bobnation guild, of 500 bobs! You are in your guild, of 500 people! Do you really want to start a war? Or worse, get booted from your guild for causing international conflict! That is it, player driven MMO. It works, believe me.

What stops a guild of miximum level characters from slaughtering all the newbies the moment they step into the world?

As far as I can tell, there'd be lots of random killing, the only people who wouldn't attack eachother are guildmates. Being kicked out of your guild for attacking someone would probably be rather unlikely, especially if you're pretty good and have alot of money to contribute to that whole city-building thing.

Your system seems to have plenty of reasons to PvP, but not that much to not PvP. In fact, apart from the fact that your houses/castles can be destroyed, what makes this different from, say, UO?

Hmm, sound like a pretty cool idea, what with the resource collecting and guilds and stuff, kinda sounds like some crazy RTS - MMO crossover, which I think would work. Still, I think it would just end up as a huge riot.

If you have a guild of say, 500 people, they arent just going to unanimously agree to everything, and I doubt a guild of 500 could stay together without some kind of leadership.

Why not just let the player choose which guild, or side, to play for when they start the game, and turn it into a neverending battle for territory between guilds. Maybe each guild could have one base that could never be destroyed, so they always have a chance to eventually make a comeback.

If guilds could be totally wiped out, do you not think that it would end up with just a single guild that was too powerful for anyone else to even touch.

1. There are safeholds for low level players
2. An entire newbie island for infant levels
3. You are either part of a guild or you're not, players without guilds are errant, generalized as pk's or thieves, and killed on sight.
4. It costs lots of money to attack cities, LOTS of money..
5. It isn't hard to find a guild, there are tons of them looking for members.
6. On a personal level, solo guy versus guy alone at camp, so he kills him. Give it a few days, that guy probably won't find a group, they know hes a pk.
6. Unique name system. All names are unique.
7. KOS lists for guilds, bounties.
8. A guild leader would quickly sacrifice member x to stop a war from happening.
9. You lose your stuff if you die. (items don't have too much value though).
10. There are 101 more benefits to working with that guy at that camp alone than killing him.

Quote:

Original post by knowyourrole Hmm, sound like a pretty cool idea, what with the resource collecting and guilds and stuff, kinda sounds like some crazy RTS - MMO crossover, which I think would work. Still, I think it would just end up as a huge riot. If you have a guild of say, 500 people, they arent just going to unanimously agree to everything, and I doubt a guild of 500 could stay together without some kind of leadership. Why not just let the player choose which guild, or side, to play for when they start the game, and turn it into a neverending battle for territory between guilds. Maybe each guild could have one base that could never be destroyed, so they always have a chance to eventually make a comeback. If guilds could be totally wiped out, do you not think that it would end up with just a single guild that was too powerful for anyone else to even touch.

1. That would make combat impersonal, and boring, no fun.

2. There is room on the map for 100+ cities, there is no way cities A, B and C will sit around while city D assimilates through force City E F and G, and becomes super strong..

3. In case this does happen, there is plenty room for alliances in the other 80 cities on the map to take those losers out.

4. Shadowbane has proven that guilds of 2000+ people can function for a common goal.

Quote:

Original post by Shamino Purely open PVP, why? We want Johnny to be able to kill Bobby if he pisses him off. We want joe to be able to claim his bad guy spawn by force.

That is not an explanation.
You want PvP because you want PvP. But why is it a good idea? Why does it make a better game? Why does the benefits outweigh the problems it causes?

Quote:

Guild System, why? You need to unite players who have a common goal, be it survival, money, pure unadulterated pvp, etc..

Do you? Why do you have to do that? Why not unite people who have different goals? (Yeah, I know Guilds are standard fare in MMO's, but you said you'd explain, so I expected an explanation of why guilds are actually a good thing)

Quote:

City System, huh? Players need something to do in their guild, besides just, being in a guild. If guilds need a common goal, what better than to pull resources together and build a freakin huge stronghold?

Again, not an explanation. You might as well say "what better than to pull resources together and decorate a christmas tree?"
What will these cities actually *mean* to players? What can they be used for? Why will guilds bother building them? Why will it improve the game? Why is it better than the alternatives?

Quote:

Things to fight over, like what? Lets see, what If I were to tell you, that after a month of building your city, it could be threatened by the douche bag down the street (guild of 200 people).. Yes, thats right, your creations can be destroyed! How about resources, your guild needs resources, so does his guild, you have to either work it out, or fight to the death to control resource deposits! And howabout this, Your name on the world map? YOUR kingdom, your guild! Theres your daily dose of e-peen right there.

As explanations go, this one is a lot better. But still. Why do we *need* things to fight over? (I've seen plenty of MMO's that had no PvP, nothing to fight over, and yet, people enjoyed it. How does that fit into your theory?)
And why is it a *good* thing that your creations can be destroyed? How will players react to this?

Quote:

Now finally, you need reasons to not bash each others brains in. Well, I already gave you one huge reason not to fight, you could lose your guild city (which btw, took millions of gold and a month to build!)...

That is only a reason not to fight if I can *choose* whether to accept a fight. If I actually have the option of saying to the invading guild "No, I don't want to fight, because I could lose my city". I somehow doubt this is the case, and so, it's not much of a reason not to fight.

Quote:

Lets talk about the more personal level, what is stopping you from bashing bobbies brains out because he is at your spawn? Well, on a physical level, nothing, but think about politics. Bobby is in Bobnation guild, of 500 bobs! You are in your guild, of 500 people! Do you really want to start a war? Or worse, get booted from your guild for causing international conflict!

Dunno. Do you? Why would starting a war be a bad thing? Can we safely assume that your guild will punish you for starting an international conflict?
And what about people who aren't in a guild? What about people who are in a less powerful guild?

Quote:

That is it, player driven MMO. It works, believe me.

What you really mean is "It works as far as I know, assuming every single player fits into this structure, is member of a powerful guild, actually has an interest in not starting random wars, who actually care about not getting booted from their guild.

Quote:

Original post by Spoonbender Quote: Original post by Shamino Purely open PVP, why? We want Johnny to be able to kill Bobby if he pisses him off. We want joe to be able to claim his bad guy spawn by force. That is not an explanation. You want PvP because you want PvP. But why is it a good idea? Why does it make a better game? Why does the benefits outweigh the problems it causes? Quote: Guild System, why? You need to unite players who have a common goal, be it survival, money, pure unadulterated pvp, etc.. Do you? Why do you have to do that? Why not unite people who have different goals? (Yeah, I know Guilds are standard fare in MMO's, but you said you'd explain, so I expected an explanation of why guilds are actually a good thing) Quote: City System, huh? Players need something to do in their guild, besides just, being in a guild. If guilds need a common goal, what better than to pull resources together and build a freakin huge stronghold? Again, not an explanation. You might as well say "what better than to pull resources together and decorate a christmas tree?" What will these cities actually *mean* to players? What can they be used for? Why will guilds bother building them? Why will it improve the game? Why is it better than the alternatives? Quote: Things to fight over, like what? Lets see, what If I were to tell you, that after a month of building your city, it could be threatened by the douche bag down the street (guild of 200 people).. Yes, thats right, your creations can be destroyed! How about resources, your guild needs resources, so does his guild, you have to either work it out, or fight to the death to control resource deposits! And howabout this, Your name on the world map? YOUR kingdom, your guild! Theres your daily dose of e-peen right there. As explanations go, this one is a lot better. But still. Why do we *need* things to fight over? (I've seen plenty of MMO's that had no PvP, nothing to fight over, and yet, people enjoyed it. How does that fit into your theory?) And why is it a *good* thing that your creations can be destroyed? How will players react to this? Quote: Now finally, you need reasons to not bash each others brains in. Well, I already gave you one huge reason not to fight, you could lose your guild city (which btw, took millions of gold and a month to build!)... That is only a reason not to fight if I can *choose* whether to accept a fight. If I actually have the option of saying to the invading guild "No, I don't want to fight, because I could lose my city". I somehow doubt this is the case, and so, it's not much of a reason not to fight. Quote: Lets talk about the more personal level, what is stopping you from bashing bobbies brains out because he is at your spawn? Well, on a physical level, nothing, but think about politics. Bobby is in Bobnation guild, of 500 bobs! You are in your guild, of 500 people! Do you really want to start a war? Or worse, get booted from your guild for causing international conflict! Dunno. Do you? Why would starting a war be a bad thing? Can we safely assume that your guild will punish you for starting an international conflict? And what about people who aren't in a guild? What about people who are in a less powerful guild? Quote: That is it, player driven MMO. It works, believe me. What you really mean is "It works as far as I know, assuming every single player fits into this structure, is member of a powerful guild, actually has an interest in not starting random wars, who actually care about not getting booted from their guild.

1. Restricting players with silly no combat rules is silly.. Unrestricted pvp, let alone that, PVP in general is something that some players just don't enjoy, and I say go play everquest.

2. Why are guilds a good thing? They provide a place to get supplies, stuff, people to communicate with, a common goal, PROTECTION. Groups to go out and adventure, the list goes on.

3. What is a city to players? It is a place to buy supplies, it is a place to feel safe from pk's, it is a project to work on. It is a place to trade, to make money, to lose money, again, the list goes on.

4. Again, PVP is a matter of personal opinion, and imho, pvp is a necessary component of a fun MMO, alot of people think this way. Destroying a city is no small task, surely hundreds of people will be defending it, and surely hundreds of people will have to attack. Also, you need to create a system where if a city is attacked, it isn't necessarily destroyed, Some kind of idea, say a time frame, where buildings are vulnerable to damage..

5. Solo players don't get much benefit in my MMO concoction, that's just the way it is, surely you CAN solo, and SURELY you CAN have fun doing it, but the real point of the game is group play, guild play. You can go play a single player game if you don't like it that much. Ahh, international conflict, for one, I've stated why you shouldn't start a way, it is EXPENSIVE, there is the chance of losing a city. Even small cities have something to offer big cities.

6. Your last few sentances are silly, why would you care if you got kicked from your guild? Read above.

Quote:

Original post by Shamino 1. There are safeholds for low level players

So its *not* 'PURELY Open PVP'?? Sounds like a 'silly no combat rule.'

Quote:

7. KOS lists for guilds, bounties.

Oh great! I've just died and lost all my gold/equipment, *but* I can place bounty on the other persons head! Now, all I need is a way to pay for the bounty...

Quote:

6. On a personal level, solo guy versus guy alone at camp, so he kills him. Give it a few days, that guy probably won't find a group, they know hes a pk. 6. Unique name system. All names are unique.

How? Don't say that the person he killed will go around and tell everyone else that hes a PKer. That doesn't happen. Ever. And thats not through lack of trying. MMOs have alot of people. Why are they people who weren't PKed going to care whether or not he's a pker, and why are they going to tell other people that hes a pker? You're asking for tons of 'JOHN SMITH IS A PK3R!!' spams everywhere.

Quote:

4. It costs lots of money to attack cities, LOTS of money.. ... 8. A guild leader would quickly sacrifice member x to stop a war from happening.

In this case, then the guild that had one, single, lonely player PKed won't want to start a war either and would be willing to 'sacrifice' the person who was PKed to stop the war.

Quote:

3. You are either part of a guild or you're not, players without guilds are errant, generalized as pk's or thieves, and killed on sight.

So you're forced to join a guild?

Quote:

5. It isn't hard to find a guild, there are tons of them looking for members.

What makes you say this? Most guilds have strict requirements to join. If not, then they are probably cheapo guilds that will never build a big city and aren't worth joining.

Quote:

1. Restricting players with silly no combat rules is silly.. Unrestricted pvp, let alone that, PVP in general is something that some players just don't enjoy, and I say go play everquest.

...and they go play Everyquest. You just lost customers. Not a good move.

Quote:

4. Again, PVP is a matter of personal opinion, and imho, pvp is a necessary component of a fun MMO, alot of people think this way. Destroying a city is no small task, surely hundreds of people will be defending it, and surely hundreds of people will have to attack. Also, you need to create a system where if a city is attacked, it isn't necessarily destroyed, Some kind of idea, say a time frame, where buildings are vulnerable to damage..

Every heard of Star Wars Galaxies? It tried to have huge battles with entire Rebel towns attacking entire Empire towns. I think the most that they have had at any time on either side is like 40-50. Definately not hundreds. And thats where helping attacking doesn't cost "tons" of gold.

Quote:

In a system of PURELY open PVP, can you trust players to keep the game playable?

Usually. Not too many people would resort to DoS-ing the MMORPG, but it's been known to happen. The more important question is can you trust players to keep the game fun or feasible [not so entirely broken, or unpopulated as to break the machine]... Which is a qualified yes. It's much harder than with 'Dev'ine Intervention.

Quote:

Purely open PVP, why? We want Johnny to be able to kill Bobby if he pisses him off. We want joe to be able to claim his bad guy spawn by force.

Well, I don't think we want players to arbitrarily kill one another, but depending on the death rules and economic setup this might not be intolerable.

Quote:

Guild System, why? You need to unite players who have a common goal, be it survival, money, pure unadulterated pvp, etc..

I would argue that such systems will exist if they are codified or not. Unfortunately, most designs ignore the fact that players can cooperate outside of the codified system, breaking it.

Quote:

City System, huh? Players need something to do in their guild, besides just, being in a guild. If guilds need a common goal, what better than to pull resources together and build a freakin huge stronghold?

Usually because it's difficult to codify ownership of the stronghold with the group rather than its leader. Also, such goals tie the entirety of the groups' 'success' into the stronghold, meaning if it is ever lost, taken, stolen,... the entirety of the group then lose all 'success' in the game, and often quit.

Quote:

Things to fight over, like what? Lets see, what If I were to tell you, that after a month of building your city, it could be threatened by the douche bag down the street (guild of 200 people).. Yes, thats right, your creations can be destroyed!

Oh goody, I now am forced to play the game at the whim of my enemy or else lose everything I've worked for. Not fun.

Quote:

How about resources, your guild needs resources, so does his guild, you have to either work it out, or fight to the death to control resource deposits!

Winner wins, and gets stronger to more easily win in the future. Losers quit, as they are faced with a now stronger enemy, and no resources to help. Furthermore, after the first rush, what are newcomers to do against entrenched, resource benefitted guilds?

Join or die. Not fun. It benefits people who started earlier, and now command out of momentum, not necissarily skill.

Quote:

Now finally, you need reasons to not bash each others brains in. Well, I already gave you one huge reason not to fight, you could lose your guild city (which btw, took millions of gold and a month to build!)...

Ah, but what's the reason for them not to fight?

Quote:

Lets talk about the more personal level, what is stopping you from bashing bobbies brains out because he is at your spawn? Well, on a physical level, nothing, but think about politics. Bobby is in Bobnation guild, of 500 bobs! You are in your guild, of 500 people! Do you really want to start a war? Or worse, get booted from your guild for causing international conflict!

But what happens if you're in the LeetMofo guild with 5000 guys, and he's in NewbCentral with 5. He dies. He then quits after dying whenever he spawns. Yay.

Quote:

1. There are safeholds for low level players

Not so Open now eh? So, what's to stop PKers from killing anyone leaving the safehold? Eventually there's a point where people aren't safe, and terribly unskilled compared to people who can kick their ass.

Quote:

4. It costs lots of money to attack cities, LOTS of money..

Money that goes where? Sunk? To the defenders? More than it'd cost to just build your own city?

Quote:

8. A guild leader would quickly sacrifice member x to stop a war from happening.

Why? Not only do they lose manpower from that, but leadership from everyone who thinks they might get sold out next. And it's an Open PvP game, why would there not ever not be wars/skirmishes?

Quote:

2. Why are guilds a good thing? They provide a place to get supplies, stuff, people to communicate with, a common goal, PROTECTION. Groups to go out and adventure, the list goes on.

Guilds generally don't provide protection, they provide retribution. Depending on the death rules, this is significant.


One thing you might want to look at is the MMORPG Puzzle Pirates. They have a full PvP system that allows the ownership and conquering of islands. There was actually quite a few inventive and debilitating griefing methods developed against their system; things that I sincerely doubt could be countered without some policing.

Quote:

Original post by Shamino 1. Restricting players with silly no combat rules is silly.. Unrestricted pvp, let alone that, PVP in general is something that some players just don't enjoy, and I say go play everquest.

So now your reason is not "because it makes for a better game", but "If you disagree, play another game".
That is *still* no explanation.
I've heard lots of people argue that open PvP is the holy grail of MMO's. But very few managed to reach above the 7-year old style of argument that goes "Because I want it!"
I'd be much more interested if you'd actually made some kind of analysis of the pro's and cons, weighed different alternatives, considered what would work, what wouldn't, and which problems would you be left with if you made it unrestricted PvP?

Just saying "Open PvP is god. It's wonderful and we need it, end of discussion" doesn't really appeal to me. It only shows one thing. That you're thinking inside the box, and just going with the usual clichés, rather than thinking for yourself.

Quote:

2. Why are guilds a good thing? They provide a place to get supplies, stuff, people to communicate with, a common goal, PROTECTION. Groups to go out and adventure, the list goes on.

So does a neutral city though. (With the possible exception of the protection part)

Quote:

3. What is a city to players? It is a place to buy supplies, it is a place to feel safe from pk's, it is a project to work on. It is a place to trade, to make money, to lose money, again, the list goes on.

Why do you need to own a city to achieve all this? Why does that make the game "better"? I've played plenty of MMO's where the neutral cities offered all this and more. So that's not a reason why I need to *own* a city.
And how does a city make you safe from pk's?

Quote:

4. Again, PVP is a matter of personal opinion, and imho, pvp is a necessary component of a fun MMO, alot of people think this way.

So what? I didn't ask for a demographic survey of "who prefers cliché A over cliché B?".
I asked why it makes for a better game. Is it something that everyone would benefit from? Or will it only make for a better game for the small minority who *already* want open PvP? I don't think there's as much personal opinion in it as people often claim. Everyone can agree that competetive elements are fun, everyone can agree that working together is fun. Everyone can agree that getting ganked at random is not fun. A well-designed PvP system would be one that attempts to reap all these advantages, while avoiding the problems. And such a system might just work for everyone, not just those who already are after hardcore PvP. But that only works if people do what you initially promised to do. And *explain* why they pick the features they do.
So come again. You wanted to explain, and "it's personal opinion, and a lot of people agree with me anyway" is not an explanation. At best, it's an excuse. An excuse for not thinking, and an excuse for implementing features that will alienate a lot of players.

Quote:

Destroying a city is no small task, surely hundreds of people will be defending it, and surely hundreds of people will have to attack.

Will they? What if we're only 150 in my guild, and most of us are in the same timezone, so most of us are offline for quite a few hours. Where are we going to get hundreds of defenders from?

Quote:

Also, you need to create a system where if a city is attacked, it isn't necessarily destroyed, Some kind of idea, say a time frame, where buildings are vulnerable to damage..

Why?
What are the benefits of letting a city be destroyed?
And what are the benefits of letting a city survive?
Should the game neccesarily allow both? Have you considered only allowing cities to be taken over, but not destroyed? Or destroyed, but not taken over?

Quote:

5. Solo players don't get much benefit in my MMO concoction, that's just the way it is

Now *that* is bad design. Designers who say "I don't care, it's just the way it is" obviously haven't thought enough about their design, or what they're trying to achieve. Surely, your goal is to make something that people enjoy playing? Preferably as many people as possible, even?
What if you could tweak the game so that people who like soloing could get something out of it too? Have you considered how that could be done? Or are you just trying to avoid thinking about players other than yourself?

Quote:

Ahh, international conflict, for one, I've stated why you shouldn't start a way, it is EXPENSIVE, there is the chance of losing a city. Even small cities have something to offer big cities.

No, you didn't state that it would be expensive. You have now, though. But one more point. Why does an individual player care that his action might have expensive consequences for others (for the rest of his guild?). Can't you imagine people just joining whatever guild they can, then dragging them into expensive wars before leaving again?
And why wouldn't the guys with the big cities just attack and take over the small ones?

I've never seen a MMO with no griefers who tried to ruin the games for others. Why would your game be different? Why wouldn't some griefer exploit this to start expensive wars between people, or just gank people without a powerful guild?

Quote:

6. Your last few sentances are silly, why would you care if you got kicked from your guild? Read above.

I haven't really seen anything in the above that gave you a reason to care about getting kicked from your guild. Of course, to someone who actually *cares* about having a commong goal, people to play with and a place to trade, it will matter. But why do you assume that everyone cares about those things? What about someone who's just there to cause a bit of trouble? Someone who's got other friends to play with, another city to trade in? Why would he be worried about getting kicked from his guild?

Sorry if any of this sounds harsh, it's not really intended as such.
But I've heard at least 50 people post the exact same recipe for "the perfect MMO".
I think it's time all those wannabe MMO designers wake up and realize that like any other game designers, they're going to have to *think* about every single feature they implement, rather than just pick the top 10 off the "Most often used cliché's among hardcore MMO'ers" and call it a game.

Every single one of your points are "I want".
Not a single one of them are "This is a good idea because...", or "the problems caused by this can be solved by..."