Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

mainstream open PvP

anemoanemo Member Posts: 1,001 Uncommon

So I've realized that the best PvPer games I've come to like are games where you're risking more than just your inventory. I've found that by risking your "territory" and your "storage" the community self enforces better.   Essentially you won't have the random person who goes 'social path' on anything that moves since he's forced to be a part of the community to some extent or Another.   Example games to this mechanic is WurmOnline, Haven and Hearth, and EvE Online to an extent.

So just as a pure thought exercise I'm going to bring such a mechanic to an MMO that is more mainstream, with the assumption that gear is now much easier to find but degrades.   We'll also go with faction/guild level warfare, and being in a guild/faction as a requirement for crime(essentially player are forced to make larger guilds, to be an actual political entity).  To do such I'm going to modify the scent system in Haven and Hearth, where crimes allows players to track your character and in severe cases summon you for a kill(even while offline).

So lets just add in that players can kill someone anywhere, and can loot them anywhere as well.  This is not to satisfy the need for hardcore PvPers need to kill anything that moves, but rather to have enough 'karma' to this action that it does not matter where it is performed. Essentially I want murder to be a calculated risk on the part of the player attempting the kill, even in cases where they have the complete upper hand.

When killed the person who died gets one scent, if they were looted they get three scents from their aggressor instead.   The victim then can use these scents however they choose(for their own purposes, trading to other players, or destroying).  

Now we're going to put factions in a semi-war status that shifts from hot and cold as the players choose.   Essentially every faction will have 'inner keep' that are defended by AI, and by human defenders(adding a rule that defenders don't produce scent on their own territory).   If an enemy can get to an inner keep they can use any scents, from that faction, to draw the karma from previous murders/thefts.   The karma cost would be along the lines of a selection of items from the players inventory/bank, or stealing experience if the items aren't liked.

_______

I feel the greatest turn off in a PvPer game is that flag systems really aren't all that powerful. Even in cases where they are the victim never knows if justice is met. Essentially the victim now has power and/or knows that someone somewhere has karma and is waiting to collect*.

On the other hand PvPers build accounts not designed to grow or interact with the game at all, just to kill. They Aren't designed to level up an gear up, and instead are just fed from a 'Main'. I believe that the role of a moral-less-homicidal killer would really only happen to something corrupted to the extent of not being human(no role), and not having an account designed to actually advance further defeats the purpose of playing an 'RPG'. Essentially a character just for killing isn't worth the risk to most guilds/factions.

*This waiting to collect idea is also the driving force for guild/faction PvP. To just have tension slowly rising as crime happens until a group decides they will draw enough profit from starting a real war/raid. It also opens up the opportunity to politics via colluding attacks, trading and destroying scents.

___________

So thoughts, views, derailments, and/or abuses. the last of which I know a couple already.

Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.

"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."

Comments

  • AusareAusare adamstown, MDMember Posts: 850
    Define what you mean by mainstream? Large number of players or a stable game like eve but with numbers that are good but not stunning.
  • ghstwolfghstwolf hampstead, NHMember Posts: 386

    There is little to no hope of going mainstream with OW PvP.

    I'll start with a reason that is surprisingly simple (and yet missed by every advocate for OWPvP), the mainstream player just like the OWPvPer demands to play on largely their own terms.  If my goal is to farm bunny pelts, that is what I want to do (I'm twisted like that).  What I don't want to do is get jumped by some a$$hat after fighting the predator that all those bunny corpses draw.  Make no mistake, that is all OWPvPers are looking for.  That "PvP rush" is all about the thrill of the hunt not their BS about challenge/competition.  Challenge would come from a straight up fight, challenge does not come from being the overwhelming force (out lvl, out gear and out number).

    That brings me to number 2- who actually wants the mechanics that would make OWPvP interesting?  Look at a successful venue for PvP, FPSes.  Low power creep= better competition.  That would bore the hell out of "mainstream" players, and scare off the vast majority of your PvP set.  While we are at it, FPses don't have floating names (which isn't too bad) and easy mode condition scouting.  Take out the lvl, health and mana bars and again OWPvPers would shat themselves at the thought of ever going 1 on 1.

    I could go on but well it is pretty pointless to do so.  The funny thing is I would love to see it work in a game and in a way I am a fan of it.  It could offer something great to the game.  But let's be realistic, 75% of the people crying for it are self destructive losers that should be ignored if you ever want such a game to be successful. 

    Your system is not direct enough and it works completely backwards.  Fresh blood should always be protected internally (direct server action) rather than relying on player groups.  Your system doesn't do that, instead it encourages going after the easiest of targets since the penalty is at best the same and is more likely to be less.  Really, how often would you loot a level 2 character?  By your system, you just cut the penalty to 1/3 of what it would be for a higher level player that you would loot.  Add to that the diminished likelyhood of actually being punished by a player who will likely lack the connections to use that system and you have a recipe for failure.

  • anemoanemo Member Posts: 1,001 Uncommon

    Mainstream is meant to be a pointless word.   You can take it as "lets add this to WoW", lets try this in XXX new game, or build a game based off these mechanics.

    ___________

    Not supporting new players is a very interesting arguement.  

    However one of the intentions is that new players are protected by the ability to sell(lets add an aution house for scents) scents,  with further intention for scents getting to the point where they're more valuable than newbie/harvesting gear.    Essentially to target the new players someone is going to want to work up to the point where they have something like a 50%+ advantage(levels and gear combined).   However to get to that point you're going to have to risk more(in karma loss from both levels and gear), and socialpathically killing will result in a lot of scents.   Further for criminal action you need to be a part of a player guild, which requires risking guild resources in defense.   Even in the case of a guild set up only for low level ganks, it just means you're making a guild where you can't defend yourself, further if you manage to unload useless loot you're just going to have a bunch of characters that are negative levels.   

    I also have the intention of scents never ever expiring until someone uses or destroys it.

    So my question of is this enough to make a player always consider "is this worth it"?  You would end up saying no from my understanding with some interesting arguements.

     

     

    Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.

    "At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."

  • ghstwolfghstwolf hampstead, NHMember Posts: 386

    Kind of unrelated: are faction and guilds interchangeable terms in your vision or does the faction house several guilds that are somewhat aligned (think IBT and locals)?  How that works does make some interesting differences.

    One of the great issues with PvP on top off an RPG system is the expectation of fairly extreme power growth.  In a way without that growth in power we might as well build an insanely huge FPS map and set it up for 4-5k players.  If you are serious about this endeaver, the focus of power growth has to take different forms.  Three that come to mind are Horizontal schemes, Political power (the later setting config in my initial question can have good hooks for that), and 1:1 trade off systems.  I won't explain these in detail as they fit better into a seperate thread.  Getting away from vertical power progression actually deepens and strengthens the connections to and within the world.

    Protecting noobs and really safezones in general (50-60% of the map) are critical.  Even if the design creates very low combat power differences (30% max), without these areas the game will  only draw the hardcore and then bleed out (because wolves hate being the hunted).  The "protections" you talk of are entirely community driven.  I'm not convinced that the value of scents will balance gear that won't be looted but will be abandoned (I'm assuming loot stays at the body, thus the corpse will be camped).  Even if they did balance, you've added the hassle of selling (auction= lag time) and rebuying.  Under your system this will be common: ten minutes in I get ganked,  run out to loot my corpse, get killed again, lacking the money to re-equip (or more importantly gear up enough to have a chance) I list the scents and log out.  Day 2- both scents sold for enough to get a couple better pieces when I re-equip, go back to leveling up, 15 minutes later I'm ganked again and log out and uninstall your worthless game.  Even if the starter gear was free to replace, the hassle would still drive many players away quickly.

    Here's the thing, I'm actually pretty indifferent when it comes to OW PvP.  I usually avoid them because they tend to be mediocre at best, and that is before you consider the awful realities of the community they draw.  They always end up with power curves that are big enough that only by dedicating monster hours from day 1 can a player enjoy the game.  The only exception is if you run with an established multigame guild and zerg it.  None of this is likely to be true of the audience you are looking at to expand this gameplay into.

  • BenediktBenedikt PragueMember Posts: 1,406 Uncommon

    well since me (and most other players) dont like losing what they spend time gaining, how about this (ide is for a sandbox game):

    each player belongs to a "village", which is more or less equivalent of the guild but tied to a specific place (their village)

    (players who did not joined any village belongs to the main city and can not have their own house)

     

    having a village gives you bonus on your territory (size of ter. depends on number of members and surrounding villages), something like +1% to rare finds, +5% to damage, +bonus into crafting

     

    when you attack someone elses village, you attack only specific things - walls, gates, npc guards etc, things specifically made for pvp to protect you "flag" in the middle of your territory

     

    if enemies get your flag, you loose your bonus, they gain some (smaller) bonus in addition to theirs and you have to "pay" them a tax - automatic process like every 10. coins, item, harvested material from each of your members goes into their village storage

     

    when village who has "vassal" villages is captured, vassal flags are automatically returned to them

  • ghstwolfghstwolf hampstead, NHMember Posts: 386
    Originally posted by Benedikt
    having a village gives you bonus on your territory (size of ter. depends on number of members and surrounding villages), something like +1% to rare finds, +5% to damage, +bonus into crafting

     

    This line needs a bit of work IMO.  While I don't question the need for rewards, I always make a point to avoid "snowball" mechanics.  Rare finds and crafting bonuses make for OP villagers and localized buffs just make it that much harder to dislodge them.  It plays off some of the less desirable traits expected of RPG and MMO systems.

    Instead, I'd make any bonus require an upkeep.  Whether that means a sacrifice to Hephaestus (or some other appropiate deity) or some other activity like paying tribute to a patron.  Or maybe something else (for example +5%dmg costs 5%in damage mit).  Granted, I'm a fan of shifting this from combat minded bonuses to political, social and economic ones.  As an example, the village (guild) channel might need to be progressed from local->zone->global in its reach.  The upkeep would likewise escalate.

    I'd go on but I feel a rant building up, one that goes way too off topic.

  • anemoanemo Member Posts: 1,001 Uncommon

    I'll say that I did not have the intention of having a world where players actually build things.   Rather guilds are just guilds, political entities for controling player/npc behavior withing premade(or autogenerated worlds).   The intention is to be closer to something inspired by MTG Ravinica set, rather than an open completely off the rails sandbox.

    Guilds compete for quests from politicians, they compete for 'control' of an area(some PvP, some NPC political stuff), and just other general levies and benefits outside of "real combat".

    _________

    However it is an interesting path to think down having players build stuff, but I don't have any thoughts on it right now.

    Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.

    "At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."

  • ghstwolfghstwolf hampstead, NHMember Posts: 386
    Originally posted by anemo

    Guilds compete for quests from politicians, they compete for 'control' of an area(some PvP, some NPC political stuff), and just other general levies and benefits outside of "real combat". _________ However it is an interesting path to think down having players build stuff, but I don't have any thoughts on it right now.

    This could be a great direction for opening PvP to the reluctant.  In the configuration I'm thinking you almost create battle grounds but they are based on several open ended objectives. 

    I'm going to back up and explain a bit of what I am thinking.  Factions will be in possession of all areas, guilds will compete for lucrative "maintainence" contracts.  These contracts will be pretty short (3 weeks out of a 1 month cycle) and heavily if not completely performance based for payment.  Durring that time the guild will be required to defend and repair the property.  I would also include the ability to make enhancements, some that increase the defendability and others that increase production.

    Other guilds will have a great interest in those properties.  The results will matter, the factions will have projects that impacted by your results (new gear and abilities availible for all faction members).  The selfish side would be that other guilds in your faction might want you to fail, which would be a major dent to your political power (likely assigned lower value properties and for stategy votes).  For guilds from other factions will see it as a chance to weaken the other faction while lining their pockets.

  • anemoanemo Member Posts: 1,001 Uncommon

    pretty much, but I haven't bothered to sumarise it any further than you've put(still stuck in small single player land for my projects).

    ___________

    Essentially territory could be destroyed by brute force, but it can't be claimed as such because you still need to play the political game to earn a claim.   The only way I could really think to make PvPers and PvEers work together, and to tie together questing and territory control.  

    to  make the political game not a grind was to take old style automatic branching/cube dungeon design and instead of using nodes for a 2D layout use it for a 2D story path with decisions.

    As for making claim destruction fair I have plans for a claim needing to have been "lost in conflict" several times before the whole thing is lost.   Essentially the first time the claim is lost, the defending guild can choose time windows in which it is attackable the next time.   And could earn back losses by forcing two losses on any guild, or one loss on their attacking guild.

    Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.

    "At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."

Sign In or Register to comment.