Hardcore Casual has a great series on PvE Sandboxes in his blog. And The Noisy Rogue asks whether PvE Sandboxes are the way to go for the industry.
I sympathize with this idea. Open-PvP in MMORPGs is a lot of trouble. The reason is that there are three different versions of PvP.
- Immersive PvP: It just doesn’t make a lot of sense that you have a sword in your hand and can hit all kinds of stuff, but not the player in front of you. That doesn't mean that you attack the player in front of you. It just means that you could.
- Competitive PvP: Sports. From a simulation point of view, people die when you ‘kill’ them. But competitive PvP doesn’t look at it like this. Players don’t really die, but rather are defeated in a (hopefully) fair fight.
- Lunatic PvP: Players enter the world, see something attackable and attack it just because they feel like they are supposed to do it.
Now, I am a supporter of immersive PvP. I don’t think open-PvP is the correct environment for competitive PvP. And I don’t like lunatic PvP at all, but I see that it inevitably happens.
I remember some years ago when I had convinced a good friend to join me in WoW. The first Alliance player we met was attacked by him. Later I asked him “Why?”. And he was just like “He was Alliance. He was red. .. he might have attacked us. Isn’t it natural to attack your enemies”.
For this guy, who couldn’t hurt a fly in real life, it was completely natural to attack another player in a MMORPG, because he in no way considered himself to be in a virtual world. For him, it was a big Counter Strike map. Since there was no serious death penalty in any way there was no reason to not attack a player from the opposing faction. The fact that we outnumbered our enemy 2:1 was just a matter of luck.
So, the question is: Can we make a game with sufficient incentive to do immersive open-PvP only, force competitive PvP into in-game arenas, and eliminate lunatic PvP?
I’m not sure. The easiest fix would be to simply disallow open-PvP. Of course, this is a major hit to the simulation aspect.
What you call "lunatic" pvp is actually the pvp which makes most sense and is most immersive . Your friend was right- the enemy was alliance, you guys supposed to be at war. Do you think in WW2 Germans and Russians casually strolled by each other to pick the cabbage in the field? No - they shoot and tried to kill each other at sight
ReplyDeleteThis was supposed to be THE WAR. Kill on sight. Make the other side life hell
If you dont get the part that " red is dead" you dont get most immersive and natural setting in mmo. And I think there is large segement which does not . And does not want to be at war. Hence its important to have different rulesets . - For people who want no part of competing vs other player
But there are people who want immersive conflict . Conflict which can shape and change the world. And real conflicts are not always fair , not always balanced and not everyone "wins the prize". There are losers and winners. Vae Victis .
Of course this a game. And the most challenging problem to solve is the fact that losing side is driven out of the game. But I believe this problem could be solved without cheapening the victory for winners and without making playing for losing side unbearable
Max, until Wrathgate there was a truce in place. That makes any attacks illegal. Depending on how politically-minded the local authorities are, that could get you in jail or worse. It would be like if during the cold war some Americans had wandered over to Russia and started shooting anyone in sight. We weren't going to be handing them any medals, we'd be rushing a few diplomats and bribes over.
ReplyDeleteWe're not part of an army. At best we're a private militia. At worst, mercenaries with infrequent contracts with a particular faction. So in this context, our random attacks on the other faction are not heroic, they're stupid.
Of course a game world could be set up in which it makes sense to attack the other faction without hesitation, but if that was the world, then NPCs would likely move with a lot more protection, as well as players if they had anything valuable.
Either way, the "I saw a lone enemy so I killed him" situation is unlikely or undesirable (either for gameplay or lore).
Either way, the "I saw a lone enemy so I killed him" situation is unlikely or undesirable (either for gameplay or lore).
ReplyDeleteLike I said there are players who do not desire to be under duress of permanent conflict. I get it - you don't war in your RP,questing , resource gathering etc.
You dont have to justify your dislike for pvp playstyle with lores or other things -its perfectly ok and valid playstyle.
But please understand that there are people who do want conflict to be part of the game. Because that is main reason why they play game first place
If I was making my own game I would make sure that I have ability to have different rule-sets (beyond simple attack flag) -to accommodate each audience better.
Max, the real problem I see with this is when you try to make a game without pre-defined factions where everybody can attack anybody.
ReplyDeleteIn such a (immersive) setting the lunatic-style PvP causes a lot of headache for the designer.
If there aren't pre-defined factions and anyone can attack anyone then I agree that lunatic PvP is not the right way to go.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason why most games have lunatic PvP is because there usually is not a justice system. I think that if a game has a bounty system of some type and if there is a form of semi-permadeath that can be applied in certain situations, then players will show a lot more restraint and have a lot more logic behind attacking players. I tossed around some ideas here ( http://www.altnotes.com/2011/03/open-world-pvp.html ).
If there aren't pre-defined factions and anyone can attack anyone then I agree that lunatic PvP is not the right way to go.
ReplyDeleteThe question is how to prevent it. You can't place guards everywhere ..
A single new player must be able to get to a tree and hack away to get wood. But if two dicks come along and kill him just because they can that is a problem.
You cannot put a guard next to every tree (would be stupid). And you cannot make fun/immersive combat that allows the one guy to flee or even defeat two guys.
So all that is left is deterrence and culture - like in real life. But how do you get such a thing into your game?
[quote]
ReplyDeleteThe question is how to prevent it. You can't place guards everywhere ..
[/quote]
True, you can place guards at critical places though (such as banks or respawn points)
[quote]
So all that is left is deterrence and culture - like in real life. But how do you get such a thing into your game?
[/quote]
Player justice. See the problem is there is no mechanism in current games to extract vengeance from those 2 other guys. There is no way to track them in the world , no way to ensure they receive retribution. Also toons are effectively anonymous and invisible
First step - avoid anonymity .Make sure toon can be tracked in the world, his reputation is tracked on his account (across all his toons). Make sure that new accounts require some time investment before they effective (that way one can not circumvent system by creating throwaway accounts)
2nd Step -allow contracts. Contracts enforced by game and designed to be robust. For example bounty contract. If the crafter got killed he could put a bounty on his killer. The bounty hunters would have tools to locate their mark .
And so on. Of course there is more details to it (for example so bounty could not be collected by friends of the killers) - but you get the drift hopefully
Try < i > instead of [quote], Max :)
ReplyDeleteI get the drift. I just don't think this is enough. Sure, you can make players non-anonymous within their account. That's a start.
Bounties have exactly the problem you mention. This only works if death really is a very strong penalthy. Eve Online is not too bad with implants, but it's not perfect either.
I feel like you need a full load of extra features just to deal with this problem. Features cost money and time and space in the UI, you know.
I think the least you need to do is allow the 'guards' to know what a player does - even though no other player sees him.
But even then you always have the problem who who attacked whom? The computer isn't good at all at finding out ...
Do you know any games that get it right ?
Bounties have exactly the problem you mention. This only works if death really is a very strong penalthy.
ReplyDeleteHere solution without harsh death penalty:
The person who places contract puts it on auction, various contractors bid on it , the purchaser makes final decision who gets the contract!
Bounty hunters and bounty hunting guilds would naturally get reputation (especially if you support that system in game, but it would happen even without - can give you numerous examples ), if you interested of having bounty executed you would give your contract to reputable BH, instead of random person #123543 who might been an alt of your killer
There use it .Free of charge :)
But seriously its not rocket science :) If you can do physics and math you can solve this. Unless you tell yourself it unsolvable and give up before even trying
I feel like you need a full load of extra features just to deal with this problem. Features cost money and time and space in the UI, you know
The system needs to be designed. It wont fall in naturally by itself (otherwise it would have happened in UO), but you exaggerating the costs. Of course there are design , development and implementation costs. But they are much smaller than the cost of implementing one WoW zone, or even a single instance
But even then you always have the problem who who attacked whom? The computer isn't good at all at finding out ...
Do you know any games that get it right ?
Computer does not ,But attacked player does. Look how friendly fire is solved on good CS servers ( used to be a plague) - if the person attacks you at certain damage treshold the victim gets a menu where he can choose punishment for attacker. He can forgive, slay ,slay next round or take money from offenders account
If it was honest mistake offender can state it (hey sorry bro -was heated firefight) - players usually forgive those incidents. If its some random TK they can choose punish.
And sometimes if there are thresholds (say some mfcker just had punished 5 times in last 5 minutes -there is autoban ,cause clearly its a troll)
Give the victim power to determine what is an offence and make sure there are ways to get retribution. - it works
Only thing which really kills those systems it complete anonymity and no cost alt creation - thats why accountability is necessary
Max, you seem to have confused my opinions with... well I don't know. Please, point out where I said I have a dislike for PvP. I never expressed a dislike for PvP. I did say that one specific sort of not quite PvP is nonsensical and stupid.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the effort, Max :)
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the only way to make this work is use players to determine a punishment. Automatic systems that decide who attacked whom can and will be abused.
The problem I have with your proposal is that a new player doesn't have much bounty to give. It's also a bit cumbersome, I think and only works if death is meaningful enough.
Anyway, I think I have a good idea. Thanks ;)
And one more thing - I believe the main reason there is no good pvp systems is because the designers are not pvpers. Most MMO designers I read about came from tabletop background and such
ReplyDeleteThey approach game differently. They do not understand dynamics of competitive multiplayer, let alone dynamics of pvp in persistent world.
They do not like pvp , they hate it , they do not want design for it , they avoid it with no-pvp switches.
Raph Koster is great game designer, crafting resource system in SWG was brilliant. But he can not design a good FPS/RTS or space sim to save his life. So everything else (combat ,pvp) was god awful there
People who like multiplayer mostly design MP FPS and RTS. And I can give you many examples of brilliant design.
There needs to be designers who understands multiplayer and put their skills for virtual world - and their needs to be a team and funding for this. So far there was no such precedents, but I think it will happen eventually
"The problem I have with your proposal is that a new player doesn't have much bounty to give. It's also a bit cumbersome, I think and only works if death is meaningful enough."
ReplyDeleteThe concept I have is along the lines that if a player who has a significantly lower level than the pker is killed, that player will be prompted to potentially call for justice from the "knights" from the nation that the player is affiliated with. The "knights" would get this bounty and they would be awarded points within the group (for promotion and rewards) for hunting down the listed players.
There could be bounty hunters (rogue, money-based) in addition to this for the other justice/revenge situations.
As far as death is concerned, I think that there could be levels of death that could be inflicted (by covering the weapon with a special poison etc). Basically if the hunter is an advanced bounty hunter he or she can inflict death that can only be healed by a high-level healer. The griefer would have to go on the forum to request a healer for the res or would have to let the body sit there (when logged on or off) and wait for someone to come by (and if the griefer is notorious then the res could be denied and he would remain dead).
The healers could also make requests in exchange for the res, allowing for healers to make it a service.
I think that bounty hunters would be nice and all, but so what? You kill a dude trynig to cut some wood, he sets a bounty on you, the bounty hunter comes and kills you and you rez. Gee, some deterrant.
ReplyDeleteBut there is one deterrant that would work very nicely if run by players themselves; an economic one. If lunatic pvpers get cut out of the economic loop then they would have a real headache on their hands.
Bounty hunting would likely make ganking more of a problem, since simple systems can be abused by getting your friends to kill you and then sharing the bounty.
ReplyDeleteI don't think open world PvP ever makes sense between players of vastly different level, unless there could be some mechanism to balance power against numbers, but that would require some more formal setting to make it work.
Personally, I think Warhammer came closest to good open world PvP by having factions separated by a PvP area and also making sure that players of vastly different level didn't meet 1v1.
I sometimes think when playing Rift that it would be fun to have PvP rifts, whereby one side creates a raid to come through the rift. Then if any defenders don't wish to participate they know to get the hell out of the area. Would probably be a good idea to sidekick players down to the level of the rift for this kind of idea to work.
All this talk of death penalties sidesteps other avenues. If the game allows a player to build in it, then the griefing ganker might well return to see his homestead burning, his kine slaughtered, and to hear the lamentation of his women.
ReplyDeleteDeath penalties also fail to work if he logs off and plays his alts until the heat dies down. Unlike if he has property in the game.
"Bounty hunting would likely make ganking more of a problem, since simple systems can be abused by getting your friends to kill you and then sharing the bounty."
ReplyDeleteI think you mean getting the bounty hunter's friend to kill people and then the bounty hunter would make money off of the bounties and share it with the friend. This would work if there were only one bounty hunter on the server and if death from a bounty hunter were an easy thing to come out of. If things were implemented right then the process would be sluggish for them and the reward would only be a possible reward for the general bounty system (this is all given that the pk'd players actually request bounties).
I think the "knights" system works for the lower level players because "knights" wouldn't go off of currency and, an important point, they wouldn't be able to attack the low-level players who use them (they would give up their ability to attack players that are a much lower level when becoming a "knight", as an honor thing).
The problem might come if four players, a high-level, a low-level, an even higher-level "knight", and a high-level healer tried to coordinate abusing the system so that the "knight" could advance and get things (which would probably be "knight"-specific and not tradeable). Even still, depending on how the "Knight" services are distributed, that particular "knight" wouldn't necessarily get the fruit of the group effort, it would just add more demand into the general system for all of the "knights".
Also, if the healer is killed then that stops the closed cycle entirely, so I would imagine that there would be a system that would call into question the repeated healers of the same criminals.
Bounty hunting would likely make ganking more of a problem, since simple systems can be abused by getting your friends to kill you and
ReplyDeletethen sharing the bounty.
Maybe before you reply you should actually read what was posted
Also, if the healer is killed then that stops the closed cycle entirely, so I would imagine that there would be a system that would call into question the repeated healers of the same criminals.
ReplyDeleteI actually designed a system to prevent muling (using alternate characters to supply your criminal). Its within general framework of "reputation"
So basically to become criminal you have to do criminal acts which are reflected on your reputation. Owner of the are is free to set up KoS of criminals, restrict shop vendors interacting with them and so on
So criminal cant do anything , he goes and makes alt or recruits a friend. But the act of trading with criminal would inflict a penalty on a trader himself (it would be visible in trading window -so newbies dont get scammed into it )
A lesser penalty (after all being a fence is not as bad as being a burglar), but one making those things unsustainable long term
Criminal characters would have to go into no-mans zone if they want to acquire services etc.
But the act of trading with criminal would inflict a penalty on a trader himself (it would be visible in trading window -so newbies dont get scammed into it
ReplyDeleteOh! I like that ;)
Garumoo wrote:
ReplyDeleteAll this talk of death penalties sidesteps other avenues. If the game allows a player to build in it, then the griefing ganker might well return to see his homestead burning, his kine slaughtered, and to hear the lamentation of his women.
Yes, but so might the new player who didn't do anything wrong ...
---
Gilded, I fear your suggestion is too compley to be discussed in my comments. Everyone who's interested, have a look at Gilded's blog.
---
Max, wrote
I actually designed a system to prevent muling (using alternate characters to supply your criminal). Its within general framework of "reputation"
The real challenge is to design a system that can find out who was the bad guy. The only one I found so far was the two-phase defeated/killed system. But even this isn't perfect. Voting systems might work too, but can be abused easily. Any other way to enable a system to find out who is the bad guy?