There are generally two schools of thought about MMO PvP: 1) PvP should be a level playing field. Any two people of the same level should have the same chance of winning. The people who spend 24 hours a day practicing should not be able to dominate a casual gamer in a moment. The casual gamer should have a fighting chance against the hardcore. 2) PvP should be about skill. How good you are at PvP depends on... how good you are at PvP. 'Random' effects like chance to miss should be removed, because it is more a gamble then a skill. More time invested means higher skill. Now, by no means are there only two options. These are the points on a continuum. Where do you fall on this continuum? Are there any other options that you prefer? If there were a fence in the middle, I'd be sitting on it. I want it to be based on skill, but I also want to let casual players have a chance, and a good time. So, what do you think? -Humble Hobo

PvP in a persistent MMO is (imo) horrible.

You generally have two cases:

1. Winning/losing PvP gains/loses you something (experience/time/gold/items). Thus it just becomes a way for some players to keep other players down; often the players who've just been there longer or played more.

2. Winning/losing PvP doesn't really do anything. In which case it's kinda pointless unless it's fun. And if it's really fun, what's the rest of the game? Just do a non-persistent MMO combat arena or something.


A non-persistent MMO (where the game restarts every 30 mins, day, week) PvP less is less of a big deal. 'Keeping players down' has less impact when they can try again on an even playing field (maybe with rebalanced teams) the next game.

You'll never be able to balance out pvp perfectly. The hardcore who play lots will tend to dominate the casual players simply because they know the strategies and have skill. Even if they have all of the same "stuff/stats/abilities/whatnot" in game.

Take a balanced game like checkers, someone who plays lots is going to dominate the new-comer, despite it being a balanced game (its proven to always be a tie if both players play optimally).

Adding in random effects could actually help the casual players against the hardcore players, since they'll have a chance to get lucky, a strictly deterministic system probably favors the hardcore players (since they will know what is the better strategy and know that it'll work).

There are other options to pvp in mmo's:
-awarding points/score for winning that isn't usuable for anything but bragging rights.
-being able to earn the same experience/items/gold/whatever in non-pvp situations as you can in pvp.

You also have the issues of lag, non-equal computer speed, and such that affect the balance for non-turned based pvp.

It is hard to say who you should cater to more. I would guess that it would depend on who your players generally are. If you have a small group of players that play a lot then perhaps it would make sense to have those types of players have a stronger advantage. Then again if you have a larger group of new players that want to try PvP then by all means attempt to make it as far as possible.

Me personally I want to participate in PvP early on. I don't like games where you have to have a near maxed character in order to consider PvP. WoW did okay with allowing different segments of the population to compete against each other in an area fashion but the player that was level x9 compared to x0 had a significant advantage and equipment made up the biggest make or break factor.

Games like SWG (before being completely reformed) did not have arena style combat but PvP was just, if I see someone that I can attack I will, even if they are significantly lower. This caused almost anyone who wasn't maxed out level to hide and not allow PvP until they knew they wouldn't get slaughtered.

Then you have games like Ultima Online when it was in its first generations (don't know if it still this way) that if you were playing in a PvP environment you would basically expect to be PvP'd numerous times daily until you have a good enough character. This was the most frustrating of them all.

I'm just kind of rambling now, but this leads me to a key idea of PvP in general. There should be some kind of motivation needed to PvP someone. The problem with games is someone will just walk up and kill someone else because they think it is fun. If they can kill their own team you will have people that will just do that all day. I'm sure you've played FPS's with friendly fire on that someone just keeps logging onto a sever to just frag their own teammates over and over. How do you make it fun for people that want a meaningful PvP experience keeping in-line with the story of the game and not limit PvP to the extent where it is just a duel type of event?

The quality of PvP, as previously has been stated, depends on a number of factors. The first, and most important, is balance. It needs to be balanced so that no class is going to have a distinct advantage over others. Even with a Rock-Paper-Scissors approach, then you have people stalking those of the class they can more easily kill, and avoiding those which trump their abilities.

A second key factor is progression. In most MMOGs characters progress up a lengthy 'levelling' process. I think when the focus is so strongly on character progression, PvP should be avoided. People don't want to lose what they've spent so long gaining, and are generally happy to keep working on their character.

When the focus is, from day one, on PvP combat, then I think that PvP can be quite fun. If you consider Planetside, for example, I think that's a relatively untapped market (although several games are coming out in the not too distant future thanks to our indies).

I thought I was against PvP for quite awhile, having mainly played MMOs where the only PvP is by both players agreeing to duel, or going to a special area like a arena. However, now I realize PvP is a great part of a game, if done right, but precautions have to be made so older players don't just slaughter any new players that join the game, causing the new players to quit.

I think killing in FPS games should be about skill. But in MMOs, it should be fair for two players that are equal level where skill/tactics has a small bonus but not much.

In Decayed of Zombies, a (beta)2D MMO I know of, players can only kill each other in PvP zones, and battling is based more off your equipment than it is on your stats, although your stats are definitely important. What skills, if any, you have are also important, as some of them are kinda imbalanced currently. The benefit of this, is that players can stick to non-pvp areas to train, but they have to risk PvP areas, as most of the higher level dungeons are PvP.
Also, if you join a guild, the number of PvP areas increase for you, making more land dangerous from player attacks.
A benefit of your power being wrapped around your equipment more than your stats, is that weak players can save up money for one powerful weapon, to give them a nice boost, or receive help from their more powerful guildmates by a loan of some sweet armor. Ofcourse, in DoZ, you lose all your equipped items to your enemy if he kills you, so it certainly adds a nice risk to battle, and a unfortunate annoyance if you didn't-ask-for/weren't-expecting the fight.

I like to know, in FPS games in particular, that I'm actually 'better' than some players when I am winning, and that it's not just a result of me having played some incredible amount of hours on the game. But in most RPGs, not much is based on tactics, it all comes down to how many monsters you killed, how much gold you looted, and how shiny your weapons are. If I had a choice, I'd rather not have to spend 40 hours a week catching up to the rest of the players before I can enjoy a good PvP kill.

Pvp should not depend on character level because then maxed characters tyrannize the world, it's too difficult to find anyone of your same level to fight, and pvp becomes endgame-only content. Instead pvp should be based on multiple types of skill: skill at designing a good character build (which should be easy to change and save different versions of), skill at figuring out the most effective moves to use in what order in each situation, skill at using the terrain the battle occurs in, and optionally dexterity if the combat is realtime rather than turn based. And I'll point out that only dexterity has anything to do with time invested.

This is the easiest question in the world to answer.

PvP should be about both level and skill. Players of the same level should be equal but final results should be based on skill at playing. (including what items they are carrying and use, any movement related advantages, tactical decisions regarding what attack to use and when, etc)

This is a very basic and simple question UNTIL you throw into the equation the "Money factor." In the old MUD days, where everyone plays for free it's a total non issue. The game has rules, and you learn to play within those rules or you don't. Simple. But nowadays this fundamental precept is challenged by the need to turn a profit.

So let's be clear. When you're talking about a path, we need to differentiate between honest game-play ideals vs those plans that will maximize profits. One does not necessarily have anything to do with the other.

Hypnotron, I think you touched on my (somewhat) hidden inner conflicts with the concept.

Hardcore players want to be rewarded for skill. But they make up a small segment of the market.
Casual players want to be rewarded for existing. But they make up a larger segment of the market.

I guess it will come down to whether I'm in it for the money, or the ideals. And I'm leaning towards the larger audience/more cash side.

Even though I would personally enjoy a pure skill game, you just can't sustain an MMO on a small, vocal group of players.

MMO PvP does, in most cases, suck for the reasons Telastyn laid out in the first reply. However, I love PvP, especially in MMOs. It just requires a different sort of model.

I want PvP to be integrated into the gameplay. Specifically, it should play a large role in high-level economics.

Ideally, an MMO that incorporates a great deal of PvP should offer less in terms of one-man-army-type "levelling" and more in the way of accumulated infrastructure and vulnerable assets.

What we get now is uberwarriors duelling for honor, and blobs ganking targets for fun, but we don't have purpose-driven combat and warfare. EvE tries, with POS warfare and system sovreignty, but it turns into arms races that are limited only by the lag of the server. What I dream of is a way for "raids" to occur in a PvP context. Player-generated facilities and player-owned resources with player-funded NPC defenses, all with costs, all with value, and all with a reason behind it.

I've said it again and again, PvP should be motivated by greed and fear, not by boredom.

So yeah, MMO PvP is crappy, but there's potential there, if you can get rid of the gross imbalance bestowed by high levels and high numbers. Economic might could be a great way to secure huge advantages, but in order for someone to have that kind of wealth, it's got to be represented in-game somewhere. Crops that can be burned, warehouses that can be raided, secrets that can be stolen.

The mechanics of the system are, of course, subject to endless speculation and engineering, but that's my pipe dream for a PvP MMO.