Open world PvP do need a buff but queing it up for balance doesn't work. Here are a few things that might help at least partly:
* Less gap between players. The astronomical difference between a new player and someone who played the game a bit must be taken down a bit. It should be possible for a very skilled new player to take down a really bad player who played a long time. That includes less gap between gear and levels (or whatever system you use for experience).
* A working murder system. All the ones we seen before sucks badly and are both unrealistic and boring. I suggest some kind of knight faction, that gets it award from killing murderers but get booted from the faction if they comit atrocities. Having the players themselves keeping the order by rewarding some of them for it is better and more fun than having NPC guards attack the bad guys every time they enter the town. Of course you should get good rewards for this since it is both more demanding and limit how you can behave compared to someone playing an outlaw.
* Well made zones. Zones with bottlenecks where a bunch of players just can stand and waiting in one place or 2 because they know everyone must pass by there is just bad.
* Real darkness. In night it should be dark enough so someone actually could move undetected unless you get very close to him or he have a lightsource.
Open world PvP do need a buff but queing it up for balance doesn't work. Here are a few things that might help at least partly:
* Less gap between players. The astronomical difference between a new player and someone who played the game a bit must be taken down a bit. It should be possible for a very skilled new player to take down a really bad player who played a long time. That includes less gap between gear and levels (or whatever system you use for experience).
* A working murder system. All the ones we seen before sucks badly and are both unrealistic and boring. I suggest some kind of knight faction, that gets it award from killing murderers but get booted from the faction if they comit atrocities. Having the players themselves keeping the order by rewarding some of them for it is better and more fun than having NPC guards attack the bad guys every time they enter the town. Of course you should get good rewards for this since it is both more demanding and limit how you can behave compared to someone playing an outlaw.
* Well made zones. Zones with bottlenecks where a bunch of players just can stand and waiting in one place or 2 because they know everyone must pass by there is just bad.
* Real darkness. In night it should be dark enough so someone actually could move undetected unless you get very close to him or he have a lightsource.
Some good ideas in there. Level disparity is a big issue with me, as I enjoy player knowledge of the game and ability to effectively use the resources at his disposal hold greater weight than grinded stats.
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
"Well, the thing is, open world PvP is always looked down on because its always unfair..."
I stopped there. Basically, you're not looking to make open world PVP better but to change it to closed regions with matched teams, because several of the factors that make it open world are the factors that you want removed. To you, it's not good, always looked down on and unfair because it's not the type of gameplay you are looking for. You want to change it from warfare to sport. What you are asking for, based on the changes you suggest, is simply zoned matched-team combat.
Can Open World PVP be made better? Definitely. Control of resource nodes,maps crafted to support tactical vantage points and weak areas, terraforming, fort/defense construction, etc would go a long way toward that in some cases. However what you are presenting and asking for is to fundamentally change the gameplay away from Open World PVP.
It's like trying to change Axis and Allies or RISK so that there are matched teams in every battle. At that point, you can just throw out the map because it no longer serves a purpose.
No, thats not what I'm saying at all. I like open world PvP actually. But the problem is, theres never enough of it.. and it only lasts a small time, even in the biggest open world PvP games, you either have small bands of PKers running around causing havok when you're doing whatever else you want to do, or you have the large battles that rarely last very long, and at the end of it, everyone goes offline and the battle ends.
Picture this:
You log into the game. You open your PvP queue. Instead of showing 5 different areas to queue, you see a map of the open world with statistics showing how many RL players your faction has defending against the opposing factions(s). You select one. Moments later a drop ship picks you up, and you fly there in real time, passing by other warzones on your way. You get there, and you notice that your team is attacking the stronghold, but you are vastly outnumbered, 15 people to 40. Its a losing battle, but, due to the low amount of players on your team, the game auto corrects, sending you a dropship of 15 more NPC players. (always keeping you outnumbered, but its still possible to compete.).
As more people show up, the NPC reinforcements stop or slow, and even though the other faction is made up of more RL players, you make some headway and weaken their defenses but you can't fully take the control point. . At the end of the battle you and your team slowly log off for the evening, the other team decides to as well. During this time, you have an band of NPCs controlling the point, and if you were to *secretly* log back on and attack them again, it would still be a challenge.
Outside of these areas you have resources, encampments, and other such things, that could change the way the battle takes place. For example, you have an armory in a bunker outside of one of the points, by attacking it, and even taking it, you cut off reinforcements to the main control point, or, say, you can control a vehicle depot, and it knocks the respawn timer for all those defending to 10 seconds instead of 6, and shortens the time it takes for you to receive reinforcements.
Anyways, this is a game, and one major problem is the lack of people playing these features. People play instanced PvP because its instant, it has some semblance of fairness, and they can accomplish something, but theres no lasting appeal. If we create the entire game, based around open world PvP, and just allow NPCs to fill in the spots where humans are absent for that time being, maybe make it a little more casual friendly. I think it would change the way people view open world PvP.
"Well, the thing is, open world PvP is always looked down on because its always unfair..."
I stopped there. Basically, you're not looking to make open world PVP better but to change it to closed regions with matched teams, because several of the factors that make it open world are the factors that you want removed. To you, it's not good, always looked down on and unfair because it's not the type of gameplay you are looking for. You want to change it from warfare to sport. What you are asking for, based on the changes you suggest, is simply zoned matched-team combat.
Can Open World PVP be made better? Definitely. Control of resource nodes,maps crafted to support tactical vantage points and weak areas, terraforming, fort/defense construction, etc would go a long way toward that in some cases. However what you are presenting and asking for is to fundamentally change the gameplay away from Open World PVP.
It's like trying to change Axis and Allies or RISK so that there are matched teams in every battle. At that point, you can just throw out the map because it no longer serves a purpose.
No, thats not what I'm saying at all. I like open world PvP actually. But the problem is, theres never enough of it.. and it only lasts a small time, even in the biggest open world PvP games, you either have small bands of PKers running around causing havok when you're doing whatever else you want to do, or you have the large battles that rarely last very long, and at the end of it, everyone goes offline and the battle ends.
Picture this:
You log into the game. You open your PvP queue. Instead of showing 5 different areas to queue, you see a map of the open world with statistics showing how many RL players your faction has defending against the opposing factions(s).
Again, what you want is eSports, not warfare. Your ideas reduce global war down to individual battles, eliminating most of the elements that make Open World PVP what it is. Why try to fit that gameplay into an environment that isn't made for it? There's thinking outside the box and then there is hammering a nail with a screwdriver because you want to use the screwdriver but don't like screwing. You're doing the latter.
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 think there are some glaring problems with open world PvP, to name a few:
1) No real rewards
2) Balancing between factions
3) Balance between classes
4) Lack of objectives
5) Not always active
6) Usually takes some coordination to have any lasting appeal.
7) Better, quicker ways to get into PvP without the roaming and uncertainness.
8) Most people just have little to no experience, and what little experience they have usually ends up poorly.
Addressed points from my perspective and opinion:
NOTE: raid as used in context means overland PVP invaders.
1. Agreed completely. Winners should win, losers should lose.
2. Disagreed. I see forced faction balance as a strong negative. It's a zerg fight. Rally a team or lose. This should become part of the incentive for for overland PVP. Not only is the reward high, the peer pressure to help stand against an opponent should be a motivating factor.
3. Disagreed. I'm of the opinion that some builds should be PVP gods, while others are not as effective. Taking away my ability to build an extra powerful toon, takes away my motivation to even try overland PVP. Reducing motivation is oppposite to the goal of having overworld PVP.
4. I don't understand what you mean by this. I think it may tie into objectives leading to rewards. Agreed.
5. Expecting a server to support overland PVP 24-7 isn't realistic. If someone is raiding, then defend. If you can get a crew up to raid, then attack. If neither, well it's just not happening at the moment.
6. I'm not sure if you mean coordination by the game operators or by players. If players, overland raid oriented guilds should be sufficient. In a way they'll become sandbox like enemies of the guilds on the opposing side(s).
7. I like WoW's defense channel. Also classes who can summon are helpful.
8. Players with no experience are a fact of life. Given a game that creates a new playerbase and offers integrated overland PVP, the first generation of players will gain experience from trial and error. With overland PVP raid guilds, the new players get a chance to see it in action and learn from others.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
DAoC was near perfect open-world pvp. I can't believe only one other person in this thread has mentioned it.
I think because that's a rather universal contention, so it's a given to most.
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
You log into the game. You open your PvP queue. Instead of showing 5 different areas to queue, you see a map of the open world with statistics showing how many RL players your faction has defending against the opposing factions(s).
Again, what you want is eSports, not warfare. Your ideas reduce global war down to individual battles, eliminating most of the elements that make Open World PVP what it is. Why try to fit that gameplay into an environment that isn't made for it? There's thinking outside the box and then there is hammering a nail with a screwdriver because you want to use the screwdriver but don't like screwing. You're doing the latter.
Of course it isn't made for it... because nobody has made it yet. No, I am not looking for esports, that actually completely defeats the purpose of what I'm trying to accomplish.
What I want is open world PvP that can cater to everyone, and the only way to do that, is to have some kind of structure.
Think.... Tabula Rasa's city control points, just utilizing the drive of real people. Theres no eSport about it. Even in the worst case scenario that you are the only one attacking a point, the NPCs for the opposing faction will be there to protect it, so you're still playing the PvE game, but its all focused on open world PvP behavior, just with some small changes.
The thing is, right now in open world PvP, you can't play it solo, you can't do anything casually if you want to be successful at all. This system could allow for both the casual and hardcore to play against eachother while still benefiting those that spend more time, coordinating larger groups, but not completely destroying the playability to factions and players with a smaller population.
I have an idea in my head, One of the biggest problem with Open World pvp is that games it discourage PKers and gankers when the game should be encourage PKing of the right kind. So you have to a create system that rewards them and create gameplay as well.So i taught of this ingame guilds like in Oblivion can the join thief, soldier, assassin, templar, mages, etc as professions or side jobs. Then they are rules for the professions.
Assassins can kill other players without going red of course there have to be amount of number lower levels they can’t kill if you pass the game guild threshold you are kick out and you become “Red”. You are reward points, have ranking system and assassins specific skills that you can level up along the way. Thatway players who like killing players are reward for killing players the system would look like
Templar, Soldiers 100
Level 50-75 points
Level 40-49 : 50 points
Level 20-30 -50 points
Level 1-20 -100 points
The difference between being Red and Assassins is as an assassin you can enter towns without guards attacking, buy stuff from stores, plus you get ranked from all the sins in the game so their is boasting about your skill, you get buy assassin specific gear that is bind on pick up and can’t be sold. The gear won’t be super power as to avoid people let them friends kill them just so they can get it.
Also they would be counter system reward players to kill assassins and Red that would be Templar and Soldiers. Their system would be
Reds 200 points
Assassins and Thieves 100 points
Any other player -50
Plus there would be APB style mission which assign to go after random players from either guild, The more notoriety you have more likely will be place as target from either guild. I think it is smart idea you create system that separates the red the players who like to kill everything and no matter what rules of the game they will do that and Player killers who enjoy competing against other players. Plus it create the PvP version of crafting.Of course the tweaks like dimishing returns on the same players and kills in players guild Warfare does not count toward the system and bunch of other stuff need to happen.
You log into the game. You open your PvP queue. Instead of showing 5 different areas to queue, you see a map of the open world with statistics showing how many RL players your faction has defending against the opposing factions(s).
Again, what you want is eSports, not warfare. Your ideas reduce global war down to individual battles, eliminating most of the elements that make Open World PVP what it is. Why try to fit that gameplay into an environment that isn't made for it? There's thinking outside the box and then there is hammering a nail with a screwdriver because you want to use the screwdriver but don't like screwing. You're doing the latter.
Of course it isn't made for it... because nobody has made it yet. No, I am not looking for esports, that actually completely defeats the purpose of what I'm trying to accomplish.
What I want is open world PvP that can cater to everyone, and the only way to do that, is to have some kind of structure.
Think.... Tabula Rasa's city control points, just utilizing the drive of real people. Theres no eSport about it. Even in the worst case scenario that you are the only one attacking a point, the NPCs for the opposing faction will be there to protect it, so you're still playing the PvE game, but its all focused on open world PvP behavior, just with some small changes.
The thing is, right now in open world PvP, you can't play it solo, you can't do anything casually if you want to be successful at all. This system could allow for both the casual and hardcore to play against eachother while still benefiting those that spend more time, coordinating larger groups, but not completely destroying the playability to factions and players with a smaller population.
We seem to be at an impasse on how "so then you fight NPCS" fits into this equation. You feel it halps allow open world PVP cater to everyone. I feel it is a PvE experience and has nothing to do with PVP, thus offering nothing to the solo PVPers you suggest would benefit from it and diluting the PVP experience for everyone else if they have to take part in it to meet their objectives (ex: SB NPC guards).
If you really stop to list the things you personally want in open world PVP, you may find that the last thing you personally really want is open world PVP.
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
We seem to be at an impasse on how "so then you fight NPCS" fits into this equation. You feel it halps allow open world PVP cater to everyone. I feel it is a PvE experience and has nothing to do with PVP, thus offering nothing to the solo PVPers you suggest would benefit from it and diluting the PVP experience for everyone else if they have to take part in it to meet their objectives (ex: SB NPC guards).
If you really stop to list the things you personally want in open world PVP, you may find that the last thing you personally really want is open world PVP.
NPCs are stand-ins when no real players are present. Like, a bot when playing a game like GoW, Battlefront, or like oldschool perfect dark. While you might want to have an 8 vs 8 battle, but only have 5 people who want to play total, you have stand-ins so it still feels like you're playing PvP in that same kind of match, and you are, but you might not have every player on the team being a real person.
What NPCs truly represent is scale, nothing more. Thats an issue, whats the purpose of open world PvP if its just 10 people doing it? Should that really be enough? People want large battles, and they want them - when they want them. And even in that case, it ONLY caters to events hosted by large guilds, or developer hosted events.
The idea is to get people interacting with the game, in a basic structure -- That structure being, you have a set of objectives in the open world, and its the same objectives the other factions have, so you will meet opposition.
It doesn't matter what I want in open world PvP, because there IS no open world PvP. I've played a number of games that had the option for it, but they never lasted, nor were they fun for very long because when I get on, nobody is there, or the battles are so small and meaningless theres no reason to play it. If we focus on the structure of open world PvP... getting people to attack whether players are there or not, players will come, because the fun and rewards will be there regardless. Then, just slowly scale the player to NPC ratio when more players are taking part. (scale down NPCs) and before you know it, you have a vast majority of players doing open world PvP instead of the strict minority we have now.
It doesn't matter what I want in open world PvP, because there IS no open world PvP. I've played a number of games that had the option for it, but they never lasted, nor were they fun for very long because when I get on, nobody is there, or the battles are so small and meaningless theres no reason to play it.
Since you state as fact that there is no open world PVP and that the battles are small and meaningless, I won't bother disputing it.
If we focus on the structure of open world PvP... getting people to attack whether players are there or not, players will come, because the fun and rewards will be there regardless. Then, just slowly scale the player to NPC ratio when more players are taking part. (scale down NPCs) and before you know it, you have a vast majority of players doing open world PvP instead of the strict minority we have now.
I guess we have different definitions of PvP.
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
It doesn't matter what I want in open world PvP, because there IS no open world PvP. I've played a number of games that had the option for it, but they never lasted, nor were they fun for very long because when I get on, nobody is there, or the battles are so small and meaningless theres no reason to play it.
Since you state as fact that there is no open world PVP and that the battles are small and meaningless, I won't bother disputing it.
If we focus on the structure of open world PvP... getting people to attack whether players are there or not, players will come, because the fun and rewards will be there regardless. Then, just slowly scale the player to NPC ratio when more players are taking part. (scale down NPCs) and before you know it, you have a vast majority of players doing open world PvP instead of the strict minority we have now.
I guess we have different definitions of PvP.
I never said it was a fact, I said thats my experience. As for different definitions of PvP, I don't think its tough to define PvP. Simply its, player vs. player. But what happens when you have 4 players vs. 2 players and 2 NPCs? Is that not also PvP?
What about TORs open world PvP? You can choose to have a companion with you, so what would happen if you had a group of 4 with no companions vs a group of 2 with 2 companions. Its still PvP isn't it? And even though 4 RL players are stronger than 2 players and 2 companions, theres a chance that the group with companions could still put up a good fight, and maybe even win, if they are better at playing. This is what I'm trying to portray on a larger scale, with rewards and objectives geared to enable open world PvP.
Maybe the biggest battles, but the most memorable ones are those where dastardly deeds and victories have been accomplished against overwhelming odds or by boldly staring death in the face.
Those battles are extremely rare, even in MMORPGs. Not worth pursuing imo. Not when the day to day battles are what they are, one-sided and predictable.
I've never seen one. And I've played Eve for ~6 years. It sounds great. But since they don't exist, it's a fool's hope to be part of one, fighting the good fight and win by shooting your torpedoes down the ventilation shaft and exploding the enemy's death star.
What really happens is you approach the enemy's death star, and are blotted out of the sky by your foe who outnumbers you 6 to 1.
Maybe the biggest battles, but the most memorable ones are those where dastardly deeds and victories have been accomplished against overwhelming odds or by boldly staring death in the face.
Those battles are extremely rare, even in MMORPGs. Not worth pursuing imo. Not when the day to day battles are what they are, one-sided and predictable.
I've never seen one. And I've played Eve for ~6 years. It sounds great. But since they don't exist, it's a fool's hope to be part of one, fighting the good fight and win by shooting your torpedoes down the ventilation shaft and exploding the enemy's death star.
What really happens is you approach the enemy's death star, and are blotted out of the sky by your foe who outnumbers you 6 to 1.
Yes, but whilst the heroic band are approaching the deathstar and the 6x enemy and 90% of the attackers are going down in a blaze of glory whilst the last 10% escape with their lives, the rest of the fleet is taking out the enemies undefended homeland.
That is what war is about, knowing your battles are part of something bigger and not being sure what that is. One mans futile attack is another mans heroic distraction
Maybe the biggest battles, but the most memorable ones are those where dastardly deeds and victories have been accomplished against overwhelming odds or by boldly staring death in the face.
Those battles are extremely rare, even in MMORPGs. Not worth pursuing imo. Not when the day to day battles are what they are, one-sided and predictable.
I've never seen one. And I've played Eve for ~6 years. It sounds great. But since they don't exist, it's a fool's hope to be part of one, fighting the good fight and win by shooting your torpedoes down the ventilation shaft and exploding the enemy's death star.
What really happens is you approach the enemy's death star, and are blotted out of the sky by your foe who outnumbers you 6 to 1.
Yes, but whilst the heroic band are approaching the deathstar and the 6x enemy and 90% of the attackers are going down in a blaze of glory whilst the last 10% escape with their lives, the rest of the fleet is taking out the enemies undefended homeland.
That is what war is about, knowing your battles are part of something bigger and not being sure what that is. One mans futile attack is another mans heroic distraction
It doesn't matter what I want in open world PvP, because there IS no open world PvP. I've played a number of games that had the option for it, but they never lasted, nor were they fun for very long because when I get on, nobody is there, or the battles are so small and meaningless theres no reason to play it.
Since you state as fact that there is no open world PVP and that the battles are small and meaningless, I won't bother disputing it.
If we focus on the structure of open world PvP... getting people to attack whether players are there or not, players will come, because the fun and rewards will be there regardless. Then, just slowly scale the player to NPC ratio when more players are taking part. (scale down NPCs) and before you know it, you have a vast majority of players doing open world PvP instead of the strict minority we have now.
I guess we have different definitions of PvP.
As for different definitions of PvP, I don't think its tough to define PvP. Simply its, player vs. player. But what happens when you have 4 players vs. 2 players and 2 NPCs? Is that not also PvP?
After we kill the two of you? No, it's now a PvE game of grinding NPCs just to end the damn PVP match. Mind you, the scenarios that I was contesting as PvE were where you presented fighting just NPCs. Add to that the queueing and lobby type design you mention over and over breaks many of the strategic components of world PVP. For your system to work you'd need to wall in the zone so that people not using your queue and teleport lobby can't get in and mess up your lobby system.
Are you going to block players from naturally entering your combat area at a certain size? After a certain period of time?
Here's an idea. Check out PotBS. Try their sea combat. I'd be very interested in what you would change about that design to improve on it.
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
It doesn't matter what I want in open world PvP, because there IS no open world PvP. I've played a number of games that had the option for it, but they never lasted, nor were they fun for very long because when I get on, nobody is there, or the battles are so small and meaningless theres no reason to play it.
Since you state as fact that there is no open world PVP and that the battles are small and meaningless, I won't bother disputing it.
If we focus on the structure of open world PvP... getting people to attack whether players are there or not, players will come, because the fun and rewards will be there regardless. Then, just slowly scale the player to NPC ratio when more players are taking part. (scale down NPCs) and before you know it, you have a vast majority of players doing open world PvP instead of the strict minority we have now.
I guess we have different definitions of PvP.
As for different definitions of PvP, I don't think its tough to define PvP. Simply its, player vs. player. But what happens when you have 4 players vs. 2 players and 2 NPCs? Is that not also PvP?
After we kill the two of you? No, it's now a PvE game of grinding NPCs just to end the damn PVP match. Mind you, the scenarios that I was contesting as PvE were where you presented fighting just NPCs. Add to that the queueing and lobby type design you mention over and over breaks many of the strategic components of world PVP. For your system to work you'd need to wall in the zone so that people not using your queue and teleport lobby can't get in and mess up your lobby system.
Are you going to block players from naturally entering your combat area at a certain size? After a certain period of time?
Here's an idea. Check out PotBS. Try their sea combat. I'd be very interested in what you would change about that design to improve on it.
I played POTBS when it first launched, but wasn't interested in sea combat.
I think theres a disconnect here, there is no "queue" in the traditional sense in the system I was talking about, its not a "queue" for an instanced portion of a map its more of a map of the open world. listing the amount of players participating in the battles on all factions sides. You can walk to these locations, but the idea of the "queue" idea was so that players don't have to walk around and look for fights, they can see the main control points and the activity of them, and then choose to join them, or serve a separate set of goals.
So, for example, if you wanted to only fight large scale, you can select the battle with the most real life players. If you wanted to create a "diversion" and take an area that had less players defending, or no real life players defending, you could do that too - but then it would show the area being attacked, and NPCs would defend until real players would get there.
The idea behind it, is this way scaling will prevent the need to block players from entering a combat area, or prevent the need to reset, or block out a period of time where others cannot attack something.
If you have 100 RL players and the other team only has 40, they can have NPC reinforcements up to, say 2/3rds your force, so they can still attack. Say you are defending and 60 people drop out, then the NPC reinforcements would get called back, and it would be a 40 on 40 battle. If you dip to 20 players because some players went to defend another area under attack, NPC reinforcements would be bolstered on your side, and the attacking team would lose their reinforcements.
You never have to stop players from entering a battle because they will never be so sorely outmatched by numbers, only sorely outmatched by skill. You never have to block out a time where there is *downtime* or when players can't attack or defend, simply because theres no need to do that, there will always be action while you have an antagonist.
What really happens is you approach the enemy's death star, and are blotted out of the sky by your foe who outnumbers you 6 to 1.
Yes, but whilst the heroic band are approaching the deathstar and the 6x enemy and 90% of the attackers are going down in a blaze of glory whilst the last 10% escape with their lives, the rest of the fleet is taking out the enemies undefended homeland.
That is what war is about, knowing your battles are part of something bigger and not being sure what that is. One mans futile attack is another mans heroic distraction
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
- but then it would show the area being attacked, and NPCs would defend until real players would get there.
Sort of like guards at an outpost? A PVP objective still defended when the current owning players are absent.
That reminds me of Halaa (spelling?) in WoW's BC expansion. Only thing I thought was silly about that is killing guards by bombing. I'd have thought normal PVE combat would have been better since it would flag the attackers and give defenders a shot at them too.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
- but then it would show the area being attacked, and NPCs would defend until real players would get there.
Sort of like guards at an outpost? A PVP objective still defended when the current owning players are absent.
That reminds me of Halaa (spelling?) in WoW's BC expansion. Only thing I thought was silly about that is killing guards by bombing. I'd have thought normal PVE combat would have been better since it would flag the attackers and give defenders a shot at them too.
Exactly. Just, the difference is, usually the PvE defense is very one note. I think it would be cool to have objectives that bolster RL players when they are present, and PvE players when there are no RL players present. Objectives that can assist in the battles taking place, even if they aren't directly related to the battle.
It doesn't matter what I want in open world PvP, because there IS no open world PvP. I've played a number of games that had the option for it, but they never lasted, nor were they fun for very long because when I get on, nobody is there, or the battles are so small and meaningless theres no reason to play it.
Since you state as fact that there is no open world PVP and that the battles are small and meaningless, I won't bother disputing it.
If we focus on the structure of open world PvP... getting people to attack whether players are there or not, players will come, because the fun and rewards will be there regardless. Then, just slowly scale the player to NPC ratio when more players are taking part. (scale down NPCs) and before you know it, you have a vast majority of players doing open world PvP instead of the strict minority we have now.
I guess we have different definitions of PvP.
As for different definitions of PvP, I don't think its tough to define PvP. Simply its, player vs. player. But what happens when you have 4 players vs. 2 players and 2 NPCs? Is that not also PvP?
After we kill the two of you? No, it's now a PvE game of grinding NPCs just to end the damn PVP match. Mind you, the scenarios that I was contesting as PvE were where you presented fighting just NPCs. Add to that the queueing and lobby type design you mention over and over breaks many of the strategic components of world PVP. For your system to work you'd need to wall in the zone so that people not using your queue and teleport lobby can't get in and mess up your lobby system.
Are you going to block players from naturally entering your combat area at a certain size? After a certain period of time?
Here's an idea. Check out PotBS. Try their sea combat. I'd be very interested in what you would change about that design to improve on it.
I played POTBS when it first launched, but wasn't interested in sea combat.
What would you change about it?
I think theres a disconnect here, there is no "queue" in the traditional sense in the system I was talking about, its not a "queue" for an instanced portion of a map its more of a map of the open world. listing the amount of players participating in the battles on all factions sides. You can walk to these locations, but the idea of the "queue" idea was so that players don't have to walk around and look for fights, they can see the main control points and the activity of them, and then choose to join them, or serve a separate set of goals.
So, for example, if you wanted to only fight large scale, you can select the battle with the most real life players. If you wanted to create a "diversion" and take an area that had less players defending, or no real life players defending, you could do that too - but then it would show the area being attacked, and NPCs would defend until real players would get there.
Here's the issues with that:
If anyone can walk into a battle, then choosing which to join is pointless because players can easily change that.
Players fighting NPCS, not Players is referred to as PvE. As I've stated before, this does not solve the problem you said you are looking to solve (solo player looking for PVP) so it doesn't help them. As far as PVPers go - if they were looking for PVP and end up having to fight NPCs, you've diluted or even detracted from their gaming experience. No one benefits from arbitrarily throwing NPCs at a PVP problem.
The idea behind it, is this way scaling will prevent the need to block players from entering a combat area, or prevent the need to reset, or block out a period of time where others cannot attack something.
Actually, it exacerbates the necessity for that. What about the guy who chose small scale and now the enemy brought 50 guys? Then after those 50 guys kill him, they are stuck in a PvE grind just to end the session. If they don't have to fight the NPCs to complete the session then the battle is still 50 guys with focused fire on the solo guy.
But when side B brinfgs 50 guys, what happens when side A brings 100? Or side B bringing another 250 to counter that. In our game, a couple months ago I saw a team bring back up of 900 players to a battle that already had about 1,100 in combat. Now, one would think that would make the battle completely unplayable but that didn't stop the two sides from collectively bringing over 1,000 more team mates into the battle on top of that!
The point is that your ideal scenario of sides balancing only works if you plan to institute an artificial cap. Are you going to cap the number of players or are you going to put a timer on how long the 'window of entry' is before the zone is locked in order to reach this 'fair' state of gameplay? If you are going to dynamically add and remove NPCs during the battle, then what was the point of picking battle size or even allowing players to walk in without using your lobby system?
If you have 100 RL players and the other team only has 40, they can have NPC reinforcements up to, say 2/3rds your force, so they can still attack. Say you are defending and 60 people drop out, then the NPC reinforcements would get called back, and it would be a 40 on 40 battle. If you dip to 20 players because some players went to defend another area under attack, NPC reinforcements would be bolstered on your side, and the attacking team would lose their reinforcements.
See above.
You never have to stop players from entering a battle because they will never be so sorely outmatched by numbers, only sorely outmatched by skill. You never have to block out a time where there is *downtime* or when players can't attack or defend, simply because theres no need to do that, there will always be action while you have an antagonist.
The only thing I can suggest at this point is for you to put that theory into practice and see how it works out. Best of luck with your endeavour.
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
All open world pvp should be just like DAoC frontiers with 3 factions, just make it alot bigger and isntead of keeps, you attack cities...I have no idea why it has yet to be copied...it's by far the greatest pvp that's ever even been thought of
That is what war is about, knowing your battles are part of something bigger and not being sure what that is. One mans futile attack is another mans heroic distraction
If anyone can walk into a battle, then choosing which to join is pointless because players can easily change that.
Players fighting NPCS, not Players is referred to as PvE. As I've stated before, this does not solve the problem you said you are looking to solve (solo player looking for PVP) so it doesn't help them. As far as PVPers go - if they werre looking for PVP and end up having to fight NPCs, you've diluted or even detracted from their gaming experience. No one benefits from arbitrarily throwing NPCs at a PVP problem.
Thats where we'll have to disagree. I don't think it detracts from the experience at all, because its not just about PvPers PvPing.. its about EVERYONE PvPing.. because the game is primarily a PvP game that caters to everyone. The focus isn't to force players to play PvP, or PvE, the focus is for players to complete objectives regardless of who's defending or attacking, and to counter those objectives other players are necessary.
For example, in WAR you had castles that you had to kill PvE enemies in if no players were present. Its the same idea.
Actually, it exacerbates the necessity for that. What about the guy who chose small scale and now the enemy brought 50 guys? Then after those 50 guys kill him, they are stuck in a PvE grind just to end the session. If they don't have to fight the NPCs to complete the session then the battle is still 50 guys with focused fire on the solo guy.
But when side B brinfgs 50 guys, what happens when side A brings 100? Or side B bringing another 250 to counter that. In our game, a couple months ago I saw a team bring back up of 900 players to a battle that already had about 1,100 in combat. Now, one would think that would make the battle completely unplayable but that didn't stop the two sides from collectively bringing over 1,000 more team mates into the battle on top of that!
The point is that your ideal scenario of sides balancing only works if you plan to institute an artificial cap. Are you going to cap the number of players or are you going to put a timer on how long the 'window of entry' is before the zone is locked in order to reach this 'fair' state of gameplay? If you are going to dynamically add and remove NPCs during the battle, then what was the point of picking battle size or even allowing players to walk in without using your lobby system?
The only limiting factor would be hardware limitations for how many players are able to be on screen at one time, apart from that the point of picking battle size is strategic as well as for the players benefit. I could attack one that isn't being attacked, or choose to help defend a position that doesn't have a lot of players there to defend, or join an attack that doesn't have a lot of players attacking. The point of NPCs is that there IS no need for a hard cap. "Only 200 people can attack this post". It wouldn't be necessary, and would simply scale.
If one person attacks a camp of 100, his reinforcements would be substantially less than if 30 people attacked 100, which would be less than if 60 people would attack 100. (percentage wise, so no, if you have 50 people you won't have more NPCs, just more of a percentage of NPCs closer to the opposing players amount). When no more RL players are set to attack the opposing team, the reinforcements retreat as well.
Kind of like, Mount and Blades system. You can see how many attackers and defenders there are in a battle before you join it, you can choose to join them, or not, but as soon as you join and die, your attack force halts, or retreats, and you can choose what to do again. If you continue fighting the NPCs stay, if you leave, your percentage (however large or small) of NPCs leaves with you.
Comments
Great ideas too!
My brand new bloggity blog.
Some good ideas in there. Level disparity is a big issue with me, as I enjoy player knowledge of the game and ability to effectively use the resources at his disposal hold greater weight than grinded stats.
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
No, thats not what I'm saying at all. I like open world PvP actually. But the problem is, theres never enough of it.. and it only lasts a small time, even in the biggest open world PvP games, you either have small bands of PKers running around causing havok when you're doing whatever else you want to do, or you have the large battles that rarely last very long, and at the end of it, everyone goes offline and the battle ends.
Picture this:
You log into the game. You open your PvP queue. Instead of showing 5 different areas to queue, you see a map of the open world with statistics showing how many RL players your faction has defending against the opposing factions(s). You select one. Moments later a drop ship picks you up, and you fly there in real time, passing by other warzones on your way. You get there, and you notice that your team is attacking the stronghold, but you are vastly outnumbered, 15 people to 40. Its a losing battle, but, due to the low amount of players on your team, the game auto corrects, sending you a dropship of 15 more NPC players. (always keeping you outnumbered, but its still possible to compete.).
As more people show up, the NPC reinforcements stop or slow, and even though the other faction is made up of more RL players, you make some headway and weaken their defenses but you can't fully take the control point. . At the end of the battle you and your team slowly log off for the evening, the other team decides to as well. During this time, you have an band of NPCs controlling the point, and if you were to *secretly* log back on and attack them again, it would still be a challenge.
Outside of these areas you have resources, encampments, and other such things, that could change the way the battle takes place. For example, you have an armory in a bunker outside of one of the points, by attacking it, and even taking it, you cut off reinforcements to the main control point, or, say, you can control a vehicle depot, and it knocks the respawn timer for all those defending to 10 seconds instead of 6, and shortens the time it takes for you to receive reinforcements.
Anyways, this is a game, and one major problem is the lack of people playing these features. People play instanced PvP because its instant, it has some semblance of fairness, and they can accomplish something, but theres no lasting appeal. If we create the entire game, based around open world PvP, and just allow NPCs to fill in the spots where humans are absent for that time being, maybe make it a little more casual friendly. I think it would change the way people view open world PvP.
Again, what you want is eSports, not warfare. Your ideas reduce global war down to individual battles, eliminating most of the elements that make Open World PVP what it is. Why try to fit that gameplay into an environment that isn't made for it? There's thinking outside the box and then there is hammering a nail with a screwdriver because you want to use the screwdriver but don't like screwing. You're doing the latter.
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
DAoC was near perfect open-world pvp. I can't believe only one other person in this thread has mentioned it.
Addressed points from my perspective and opinion:
NOTE: raid as used in context means overland PVP invaders.
1. Agreed completely. Winners should win, losers should lose.
2. Disagreed. I see forced faction balance as a strong negative. It's a zerg fight. Rally a team or lose. This should become part of the incentive for for overland PVP. Not only is the reward high, the peer pressure to help stand against an opponent should be a motivating factor.
3. Disagreed. I'm of the opinion that some builds should be PVP gods, while others are not as effective. Taking away my ability to build an extra powerful toon, takes away my motivation to even try overland PVP. Reducing motivation is oppposite to the goal of having overworld PVP.
4. I don't understand what you mean by this. I think it may tie into objectives leading to rewards. Agreed.
5. Expecting a server to support overland PVP 24-7 isn't realistic. If someone is raiding, then defend. If you can get a crew up to raid, then attack. If neither, well it's just not happening at the moment.
6. I'm not sure if you mean coordination by the game operators or by players. If players, overland raid oriented guilds should be sufficient. In a way they'll become sandbox like enemies of the guilds on the opposing side(s).
7. I like WoW's defense channel. Also classes who can summon are helpful.
8. Players with no experience are a fact of life. Given a game that creates a new playerbase and offers integrated overland PVP, the first generation of players will gain experience from trial and error. With overland PVP raid guilds, the new players get a chance to see it in action and learn from others.
I think because that's a rather universal contention, so it's a given to most.
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
Of course it isn't made for it... because nobody has made it yet. No, I am not looking for esports, that actually completely defeats the purpose of what I'm trying to accomplish.
What I want is open world PvP that can cater to everyone, and the only way to do that, is to have some kind of structure.
Think.... Tabula Rasa's city control points, just utilizing the drive of real people. Theres no eSport about it. Even in the worst case scenario that you are the only one attacking a point, the NPCs for the opposing faction will be there to protect it, so you're still playing the PvE game, but its all focused on open world PvP behavior, just with some small changes.
The thing is, right now in open world PvP, you can't play it solo, you can't do anything casually if you want to be successful at all. This system could allow for both the casual and hardcore to play against eachother while still benefiting those that spend more time, coordinating larger groups, but not completely destroying the playability to factions and players with a smaller population.
I have an idea in my head, One of the biggest problem with Open World pvp is that games it discourage PKers and gankers when the game should be encourage PKing of the right kind. So you have to a create system that rewards them and create gameplay as well.So i taught of this ingame guilds like in Oblivion can the join thief, soldier, assassin, templar, mages, etc as professions or side jobs. Then they are rules for the professions.
Assassins can kill other players without going red of course there have to be amount of number lower levels they can’t kill if you pass the game guild threshold you are kick out and you become “Red”. You are reward points, have ranking system and assassins specific skills that you can level up along the way. Thatway players who like killing players are reward for killing players the system would look like
Templar, Soldiers 100
Level 50-75 points
Level 40-49 : 50 points
Level 20-30 -50 points
Level 1-20 -100 points
The difference between being Red and Assassins is as an assassin you can enter towns without guards attacking, buy stuff from stores, plus you get ranked from all the sins in the game so their is boasting about your skill, you get buy assassin specific gear that is bind on pick up and can’t be sold. The gear won’t be super power as to avoid people let them friends kill them just so they can get it.
Also they would be counter system reward players to kill assassins and Red that would be Templar and Soldiers. Their system would be
Reds 200 points
Assassins and Thieves 100 points
Any other player -50
Plus there would be APB style mission which assign to go after random players from either guild, The more notoriety you have more likely will be place as target from either guild. I think it is smart idea you create system that separates the red the players who like to kill everything and no matter what rules of the game they will do that and Player killers who enjoy competing against other players. Plus it create the PvP version of crafting.Of course the tweaks like dimishing returns on the same players and kills in players guild Warfare does not count toward the system and bunch of other stuff need to happen.
We seem to be at an impasse on how "so then you fight NPCS" fits into this equation. You feel it halps allow open world PVP cater to everyone. I feel it is a PvE experience and has nothing to do with PVP, thus offering nothing to the solo PVPers you suggest would benefit from it and diluting the PVP experience for everyone else if they have to take part in it to meet their objectives (ex: SB NPC guards).
If you really stop to list the things you personally want in open world PVP, you may find that the last thing you personally really want is open world PVP.
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
NPCs are stand-ins when no real players are present. Like, a bot when playing a game like GoW, Battlefront, or like oldschool perfect dark. While you might want to have an 8 vs 8 battle, but only have 5 people who want to play total, you have stand-ins so it still feels like you're playing PvP in that same kind of match, and you are, but you might not have every player on the team being a real person.
What NPCs truly represent is scale, nothing more. Thats an issue, whats the purpose of open world PvP if its just 10 people doing it? Should that really be enough? People want large battles, and they want them - when they want them. And even in that case, it ONLY caters to events hosted by large guilds, or developer hosted events.
The idea is to get people interacting with the game, in a basic structure -- That structure being, you have a set of objectives in the open world, and its the same objectives the other factions have, so you will meet opposition.
It doesn't matter what I want in open world PvP, because there IS no open world PvP. I've played a number of games that had the option for it, but they never lasted, nor were they fun for very long because when I get on, nobody is there, or the battles are so small and meaningless theres no reason to play it. If we focus on the structure of open world PvP... getting people to attack whether players are there or not, players will come, because the fun and rewards will be there regardless. Then, just slowly scale the player to NPC ratio when more players are taking part. (scale down NPCs) and before you know it, you have a vast majority of players doing open world PvP instead of the strict minority we have now.
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 never said it was a fact, I said thats my experience. As for different definitions of PvP, I don't think its tough to define PvP. Simply its, player vs. player. But what happens when you have 4 players vs. 2 players and 2 NPCs? Is that not also PvP?
What about TORs open world PvP? You can choose to have a companion with you, so what would happen if you had a group of 4 with no companions vs a group of 2 with 2 companions. Its still PvP isn't it? And even though 4 RL players are stronger than 2 players and 2 companions, theres a chance that the group with companions could still put up a good fight, and maybe even win, if they are better at playing. This is what I'm trying to portray on a larger scale, with rewards and objectives geared to enable open world PvP.
I've never seen one. And I've played Eve for ~6 years. It sounds great. But since they don't exist, it's a fool's hope to be part of one, fighting the good fight and win by shooting your torpedoes down the ventilation shaft and exploding the enemy's death star.
What really happens is you approach the enemy's death star, and are blotted out of the sky by your foe who outnumbers you 6 to 1.
Yes, but whilst the heroic band are approaching the deathstar and the 6x enemy and 90% of the attackers are going down in a blaze of glory whilst the last 10% escape with their lives, the rest of the fleet is taking out the enemies undefended homeland.
That is what war is about, knowing your battles are part of something bigger and not being sure what that is. One mans futile attack is another mans heroic distraction
Get back to me when that happens in an MMORPG.
MMOFPS's? Sure. MMORPG's? No.
After we kill the two of you? No, it's now a PvE game of grinding NPCs just to end the damn PVP match.
Mind you, the scenarios that I was contesting as PvE were where you presented fighting just NPCs. Add to that the queueing and lobby type design you mention over and over breaks many of the strategic components of world PVP. For your system to work you'd need to wall in the zone so that people not using your queue and teleport lobby can't get in and mess up your lobby system.
Are you going to block players from naturally entering your combat area at a certain size? After a certain period of time?
Here's an idea. Check out PotBS. Try their sea combat. I'd be very interested in what you would change about that design to improve on it.
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 played POTBS when it first launched, but wasn't interested in sea combat.
I think theres a disconnect here, there is no "queue" in the traditional sense in the system I was talking about, its not a "queue" for an instanced portion of a map its more of a map of the open world. listing the amount of players participating in the battles on all factions sides. You can walk to these locations, but the idea of the "queue" idea was so that players don't have to walk around and look for fights, they can see the main control points and the activity of them, and then choose to join them, or serve a separate set of goals.
So, for example, if you wanted to only fight large scale, you can select the battle with the most real life players. If you wanted to create a "diversion" and take an area that had less players defending, or no real life players defending, you could do that too - but then it would show the area being attacked, and NPCs would defend until real players would get there.
The idea behind it, is this way scaling will prevent the need to block players from entering a combat area, or prevent the need to reset, or block out a period of time where others cannot attack something.
If you have 100 RL players and the other team only has 40, they can have NPC reinforcements up to, say 2/3rds your force, so they can still attack. Say you are defending and 60 people drop out, then the NPC reinforcements would get called back, and it would be a 40 on 40 battle. If you dip to 20 players because some players went to defend another area under attack, NPC reinforcements would be bolstered on your side, and the attacking team would lose their reinforcements.
You never have to stop players from entering a battle because they will never be so sorely outmatched by numbers, only sorely outmatched by skill. You never have to block out a time where there is *downtime* or when players can't attack or defend, simply because theres no need to do that, there will always be action while you have an antagonist.
http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=4522&tid=7
http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=4493&tid=7
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
Sort of like guards at an outpost? A PVP objective still defended when the current owning players are absent.
That reminds me of Halaa (spelling?) in WoW's BC expansion. Only thing I thought was silly about that is killing guards by bombing. I'd have thought normal PVE combat would have been better since it would flag the attackers and give defenders a shot at them too.
Exactly. Just, the difference is, usually the PvE defense is very one note. I think it would be cool to have objectives that bolster RL players when they are present, and PvE players when there are no RL players present. Objectives that can assist in the battles taking place, even if they aren't directly related to the battle.
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
All open world pvp should be just like DAoC frontiers with 3 factions, just make it alot bigger and isntead of keeps, you attack cities...I have no idea why it has yet to be copied...it's by far the greatest pvp that's ever even been thought of
I was just about to post that it happens all the time in EVE but you beat me to the punch
Kind of like, Mount and Blades system. You can see how many attackers and defenders there are in a battle before you join it, you can choose to join them, or not, but as soon as you join and die, your attack force halts, or retreats, and you can choose what to do again. If you continue fighting the NPCs stay, if you leave, your percentage (however large or small) of NPCs leaves with you.