Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
PvP without direct confrontation
Dhaenon
Member UncommonPosts: 150
Hey all!
I was bouncing around the idea of PvP without directly confronting one another and what I came up with is a sort of Outpost that can be conquered through a Reputation system and/or by using NPC monsters to drive the enemy faction out. You never actually fire a shot on the enemy, but you instigate or engineer their demise.
Do you think such a thing would be well received?
Comments
I had fun once, it was terrible.
Basically PvE but with PvP elements.
A few ideas were, say you and your team zone into a dungeon, an enemy team zones in as well and now you must race to the objective. Or say a PvP element much like the game EVOLVE, where you take control of a monster and now a team of the other faction must hunt you down. Not really character to character PvP, but with elements of it.
Sounds like a board game. Chess or checkers. I don't think it would be considered PvP.
Sounds like nuclear war actually
Easy mode?
One I suggest you look into: Heroes Charge, it's free on Android and IOS.
Technically its an RPG-MOBA hybrid and revolves heavily around Arena combat. BUT, there's never a direct interaction with the other players. I build a team of heroes which are my defenders. Someone comes along and attacks my defenders, but it's not me controlling them. From the engine's point of view, they're only NPCs. I don't even have to be online.
Same thing in reverse. I battle my way up a PVP progression ladder fighting against player owned defenders, but never really another player.
The abstraction is amazing. It's the only PVP game I've ever played and didn't have all sorts of negative reactions to.
Maybe it'll be helpful.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
There was a little game in the 80s called Omega made by Origin where you built a tank and then programmed its behavior using a simple decision tree AI interface to play in a city map. That created a file and you could put your tank up against someone else's.
Origin and Computer Gaming World (the print magazine that later on became the Web Site of the same name which later still changed its name to Gamespot) ran several tournaments.
It was fun in that old 1980's computer gaming geek culture kind of way when a lot f us gamers also programmed a bit or a lot.
Last game to do that even a little bit (as far as I know) was Baldur's Gate with the companion programming interface. I kind of miss that
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
You might just like Die2Nite
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Already exists in Guildwars: Factions. There you contribute points to your guild/alliance and if you get enough you gain your own outpost and town with a specific area only for members in it.
This system was implemented in WoW, I think in WotLK. Contested zones had PvP towers that could be captured by occupation, non-confrontation. The idea was that the occupation would be televised across the zone and draw PvPers to the tower. In my experience it didn't.
SWG had a revolving faction ownership of planets and NPC capital cities. This was done by Faction (Flagged) PvE, which ever faction does the most faction PvE, becomes the ruling faction. Because it is flagged, you can stumble into PvP. That was the design goal.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
There's a more modern variation of that idea called Robocode. You write the tank AI in either Java or .NET.
It's a lot of fun to mess with.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
Kinda like being here, but in 3D.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I got so board half way through this post that I stopped just to tell you about how board this post made me...
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I already lived it in 3D the first 18 years.
Well competition is always PVP, but the less that players' decisions affect one another the less dynamic it'll be, and the less likely it'll be called PVP.
For example a Dungeon Speedrun Leaderboard is technically PVP, but nobody would call it that and it'll only be as interesting as the PVE content it's based on, since you can't do anything to affect other players' times and they can't do anything to affect yours.
A better implementation would be more like euro-style boardgames, where direct attacks are often prohibited, but your actions have strong impact on the strategic options available to your opponents (often in the form of exclusive decisions: if one player chooses a Harvest action, no other player can take that action this turn.) Similar techniques could be used to create systems where players weren't in direct conflict with one another, but where their choices have strong impact on the other players' options, and eventually a winner is declared.
The notion that a winner can be declared seems important, as it implies there's a formalized system for the competition. Otherwise you end up realizing that players competing for ore spawns on a PVE server are already doing this (player locations are exclusive - we only exist in one place - so I can affect my competition by harvesting the nodes in front of their path or beating them to the high-density part of the zone and harvesting there first.) And that even though that's theoretically competition, the fact that it's an open-ended activity without formalized rules declaring a winner makes it a lot less competitive.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Any game with crafting and even an almost decent economy.
Guild recruitment.
the "firsts".
Game mechanic "masters"/"explorers" for that reputation.
Tera does have rep/raid grinding for guild housing PvE.
____________________
Be interesting if you could disable some respawn points in some territories for some enemies.
Be interesting if you could control taxes for some entities and at different rates.
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."
An idea I had was dungeon competition. Your team vs another team, both are trying to reach the end objective first. Mostly it is PvE but maybe you could mess with the other team, shoot a pipeline that causes a fire wall they have to wait to cross or trigger a cave in that requires them to dodge falling rocks while fighting some mobs.
Thoughts?