Incentivising "Open" PvP.

Player versus player combat. It's a universal problem among online gaming communities everywhere today. A vocal section of any virtual room full of gamers loves it with a passion, for the freedom, for the self-empowerment, because it's an "easy" way to acquire resources, perhaps even for the malicious delight of spoiling someone's day. An equally vocal section of this same imaginary room loathes such an idea, because it restricts their freedom, it's too difficult, don't enjoy the tension, don't want to lose valuable time invested, or even because they just don't want to associate with the play of people they see as immature. The reasons for liking and disliking are many and varied and not the direct focus of this essay, although they're likely to be referenced again further in.

Proponents of PvP are often left feeling flat with systems that are wholly consensual. Some of these systems include gladiatorial style arenas, where free for all or system-arranged matches take place; regions of free for all or factional combat, such as a wild and dangerous frontier where anything goes; guild and faction based free for all combat, set up and arranged by guilds or NPC factions, the opposition is free to be attacked anywhere, at any time. While there are pros and cons for each option, it often leaves a game with a feeling of blandness. There's a lack of spontaneity or thrill if you know that most people are still going to be able to casually walk by and ignore you, or if battles take place in distant "instances" without there being a truly free feeling of conflict within the play experience and most of all, at least in my opinion, there is always going to be a huge lack of other people to engage with. Unfortunately, there are always going to be negative responses (often, unfortunately, met with a player exodus) when a feeling of "forcing" characters into a competitive PvP situation is engendered within players.

So, how do you get people involved in PvP, without making a fully open system, without them immediately protesting? How do you create an opt-in system that gives all players a choice and rewards risk without stifling individual choice? First of all, any experience has to educate the player. An informed player can make better choices for himself and has less reason to complain that so-and-so stole my best butter knife or that their Magical Hat of Frivolity +5 was looted after they were murdered. There's nothing more bitter than a player who not only feels aggrieved by the other player's actions, but also by the game for not giving them adequate warning. Secondly, you never leave the non-PvPer with a feeling of being gated off from content. Nothing makes people simply stop trying than the feeling of being excluded, so the dangling carrot must always be there, no matter how distant or difficult the alternate route might be. Thirdly, and this is really what I wanted to finally write about, you incentivise the player versus player environment so that there are benefits as well as potential risks. I'm going through a few of these choices for such an incentive, as well as my personal opinions on them.

<b>Player versus player "currency".</b>
Some sort of currency to reward players for successful kills. Perhaps based upon the relative "skill" or quality of gear the players have, perhaps based on some ranking system whereby a kill against a powerful, experienced opponent yields valuable points and a helpless, zero-pointed PvPer actually costs the killer currency. Such currency can be later turned in for quality equipment, consumables, and most of all a LOT of varied cosmetic items (severed heads, ear/bone necklaces, etc.) to really display that such a person is a very formidable foe indeed!

While I like the system (particularly the ability to tie cosmetic appearance in-game with ones actions) it doesn't hugely incentivise non-PvPers to engage, even if the reward might be high.

<b>Improved, dynamic rewards in other play styles through PvP.</b>
A bit of a mouthful, but essentially the idea is to reward players who engage in PvP (or at least open themselves up to the possibility of such) with additional resources, be they money, items or experience/skill gain, for instance, whenever they are "flagged" for PvP. This flagging system could be through an all world toggle "yes/no" style that changes the player's status everywhere. It could be through a system of regions, or a mirror world such as a Felucca/Trammel, wherein one area is always open PvP and the other is always not. Such a system doesn't encourage people directly, but it allows those that want to take the risks to earn a greater reward. Whether it multiplies skill gains, makes your average Bandit drop twice the coin, or increases the resources gathered from a gypsy's hope chest, the non-PvP rewards should be notably raised for placing oneself within the opt-in system.

Personally, this would be the system I would delight in seeing, provided that the reward/risk levels were tuned well. The precise rewards for such a system, in my opinion, should never be unique only to PvP (thus effectively gating off content from those most ardent of anti-PvPers), but should still significantly hamper their efficiency or their speed in progressing, gathering. In other words, slow them, limit them, require they invest much more time to get the same reward, but never fully exclude those that do not take part.


This isn't meant to be yet another discussion on how open world PvP must be included, or must not, or otherwise. There are MANY other threads right here for just those discussions. What I would love to hear, though, are peoples thoughts on the ideas of opt-in PvP being incentivised enough to encourage people to give it a try, ideas for incentives, thoughts on the pros-cons of such incentives, etc. with the idea that people of all stripes would be willing to engage in open world antics, to the betterment of both sides of "the PvP debate", without being forced into anything by the system.

 

If we you look at most of the threads on this forum you will notice that they mostly talk about PVP as it looks like it is the most popular topic.

I personally think that PVP has to be Open and should be available everywhere.

Its a surprise factor that makes players think when they are hunting.

If you go role playing in a dungeon and figure out how to overcome monsters that's where the fun ends.

But having other players involved will create entire different situation.

Otherwise this game will be no different to whats out there on the market now.

 

hmm.. likely you would just want to get your 'pvp xp' by engaging that player.. slowly climbing the ranks of a mere peasant into a expert fighter
-You could even gain skill just by fighting someone superior to yourself (like pvp training)
-You would want the chance at a loot drop
-wanting to seek out specific targets as opposed to slaying all the noobs for more valued kills

 

I think the way to do this is to create PvP spaces, instances, or whatever that require MORE than just PvP to succeed.

For example, the scene here is laying seige to a castle. Your group is tasked with weakening the walls by digging underneath the foundations. You need to get several miners to do the work, and PvPers to protect them. All parties involved get rewarded based not on kills, but by how much damage is done to the walls before the defenders wipe you out.

So the ideal group won't be a bunch of skilled PvPers that can hold out for a long time, because no one is skilled enough at mining to do the actual damage. Your group will have to grab a Grandmaster miner or two to rack up the points, while the PvPers do their job.

The miners will have the mission reward as the incentive. And if this is a full loot area, they will know ahead of time and strip down to the bare necessities: a few picks, some basic armor, etc. If they die, they won't lose 30 minutes of mining work. If they succeed in breaking down the walls, give them a bit more ore as a reward than they could get harvesting out in the wild.

Bring people together utilizing their preferred play styles and skills instead of segregating PvP and other functions of the game.

Or to summarize, make areas where crafters directly contribute to the PvP areas, limit their risk, and give them crafting oriented rewards.

 

Ya I think a good thing will be clever instancing.... maybe a instance that is flagged and owned by a certain group. It will be like a special PvP instance to capture and own by a group, which in tern will then be available to capture by other forces...
There is lots of cool lore to use as backdrops to cool fight scenes or castles/fortress/dungeon/wizard tower etc... whatever that will be

 

I don't think we should offer incentive to Open PvP. I think there should be Open PvP with incentive NOT to PvP.

That is the way the real world works.

And it very EASILY ties in to RG's virtue system. Consider it that positive actions have rewards, negative actions have penalties.

Make an Open PvP world. In it, you can have factions that openly PvP. You can have places that you openly PvP. And you can have instances where because of quest you PvP certain targets. In these places, PvP can be completely unrestricted. Players can choose to, or not to, participate in these.

And then you have areas that are classified as PvP counter measured. In these places, you can still force a PvP (i.e. PK), but if you do, you get negative Virtue marks.

After a couple, You are flagged as a Notorious person, and another player can kill you any time, any place, with no penalty.

A few more, and a bulletin is put on you and you can't step into town without getting ganked by town guards.

A few more negative marks and your spirit is permanently tarnished, that every time you die you have a resurrection timer before you can resurrect, a timer that does NOT lessen over time. The Gods dislike you, so you will have the resurrection timer forever until you repent or redeem yourself through real effort.

A few more negative marks, and a gank patrol of town guards starts searching the wilderness for you. Gank guards wander the wilderness, and if you happen across them or they across you, huzzah, expect to die.

A few more negative marks and the gank patrol starts tracking you, often waiting at places you frequent. They could even show up at your house and bust in to kill you.

A few more negative marks and the resurrection timer gets to be so long, any time you die you might as well log off for the night because you won't be resurrecting any reasonable time later.

I think this not only balances Griefing, it perfectly ties in to the world and the story and the Virtues. A died-in-the-wool killer accepts as a part of his evil actions there are negative consequences. Real, tangible, negative consequences. And those that want to get rid of those negative consequences have to repent, and make reparations. The worse kind of person you were, the more dire the consequences, and the more repentance you would have to do to come back into the light.

----

If you get the idea, it is Counter-Griefing. You should be allowed to Grief other via PK, or even by stealing. That is really realistic. But in return, the game is going to Grief <i>YOU</i>. Because if the game doesn't hold you to your actions, then what will?

And go ahead and slam me if you like, saying this is unfair. I don't think it is. I think it is exactly fair. It would tick you off you having to wait twenty minutes to resurrect. But how ticked off do you think the other player was when he was just minding his business and you came along and ganked him. It's a tit for a tat.

 

How to get <i><b>me</b></i> to try PvP:

- Keep PvP fully optional. And by that I mean to not even have any reward for PvP activity (or accepting PvP risk) that feels needed in PvE and is either unobtainable, or just too harder to get, through pure PvE play. If I can't control when I engage in PvP, or if I feel like a second class player as a PvE player due to the rewards being much better for PvPers, I will just leave the game before even trying PvP.

- Give newbs an actual fighting chance, and make starting in PvP easy. If I just get exploded right away whenever I turn on PvP then I will quickly stop trying, and if I have a long grind ahead to get starting PvP gear that is roughly equivalent to my current PvE gear I'm unlikely to even bother starting.

- Keep the penalty for PvP defeat low, specially for newbs. The higher the penalty for defeat, the more effort in preparation I feel as absolutely required before even trying PvP - and if the effort gets too great (or if the penalty is just too large) I don't even bother to start. Not worthy for an activity I'm not even sure I will like (and that I didn't like in most of the dozen or so other MMOs I've tried up to now).

- To keep me playing the PvP, it needs to be fun by itself, not too unbalanced, without too much downtime (which can be caused by death penalties forcing the player to either wait a time before rezzing to to grind back the required resources to fight, for example), and not unduly punish players with a lone wolf tendency such as myself.

 

We have a lot of threads on this. But just so we're clear:

A Killer will PvP if he can use some unfair advantage and make someone cry.
An Achiever will PvP as a rational decision based on opportunity cost and risk vs reward
An Explorer will PvP as a last resort to unlock end game content
A Socializer will PvP if it's casual enough and his friends are doing it


I like PvP. But I'm pretty much an Achiever. I'll do castles sieges and battlegrounds all day if it pays. I'll got to a harsh PvP enabled zone if it pays. There's some thrill to open PvP but it's generally a nuisance. I'd rather have a fair fight.

The problem is that the people who really want open PvP are the killers. And they only want to do it if they can fight unwilling sheep. The incentive that fuels them is not points. It's watching someone cry on the forums and rage quit because they died to many times.

 

PvP should only be optional and it will be. They've said it will be. If it's not, most of the players will walk. And you're just left with a giant PvP arena for PvPers that no one else will play.

PvP zones will only be entered by PvPers. PvP quests will only be undertaken by PvPers. You can't make people spend their leisure time participating in something they don't wanna do.

You aren't getting UO-launch victims to PK at will. That's just how it is. Get over it.

 

I never PK'd and I never really hunted PK's. Nobody LIKES getting killed and losing stuff. But I look back with fondness on those times, not only because it was new, but because the existence of PKs gave EVERY moment of the game meaning. Wandering between the forest between Minoc and Vesper for instance was a 2 minute affair, and in any other game would be boring, been-there-done-that travel, but in UO you had to always be prepared and invested in and participating in your surroundings. While most themepark MMOs end up boring the living daylights out of people when they grind to max, UO didn't ever feel that way because the "newb areas" never became irrelevant. The whole world felt alive and there was no wasted land that became unnecessary after you out-level it.

Regardless on if people LIKE open PVP or not, it is my opinion (and a lot of others') that it truly adds to the game and keeps people on their toes and invested in the living world. It is actually GOOD for the economy, as there is a gold sink and a counterbalance from any one person getting too powerful.

 

As far as I understand, there is no 'open' PvP. There will just a number of other players always around you though. It sounds pretty vague to me tbh..

 

@mike11:

I don't think all the details are defined yet. But as far as those other characters around you go, seems like they want to make the "matchmaking" system use some data from how you play, including your PvP preference, to choose who you are put together with.

So, if you are mostly interested in PvP, expect to often be together with other players that want to PvP. Depending on how many players are interested in PvP, you might even get the illusion of a world with completely open PvP, being able to attack anyone you meet; the main differences are that you should never meet players that don't actually want to engage in PvP, and that a targeted player can escape PvP not only by logging off, but also by turning off PvP or setting his game to friends only or even single player.

 

Say no to PVP "meta" currency, this isn't WoW. If I'm out in the world grinding not looking for pvp, if I don't have any risk (to other players) other than them wasting my time, that's gonna be a boring grind. You might aswell have no PvP at all. If there's real risk involved in grinding the stuff it(what you're grinding) is gonna have more value, and you're gonna have to stay on your toes while doing it.

Ultima Online had full loot, which means you don't go out grinding in gear your afraid of losing. It also means if you go around in epic looking gear, you're probably a real badass, since no one seems to be able to take it from you.

Full loot also empowers the economy and specifically crafters, in other games without full loot all a crafter really makes is the top gear and it's a one time purchase. If things get destroyed and lost instead it keeps everything moving. Destroying 50% of your equipment and letting all of your inventory be looted would also do the same thing for player risk, but reduce reward. (this is more like the EVE model)

 

Well, there are over 23,000 contributors, and there will be more players (hopefully many more). Even if only a small percentage of people consent to full PvP , whatever that might be, that is a LOT of people to fight, particulary if the server actively brings PvPers together rather than making you search for them. If the only people I see outside of town are combatants, that will be a vast improvement over any PvP game I've ever played.

 

Agreed Owain. I never cared to see all the newbie/crafters which represented no real threat for a PvPer. If the only people I see are PvPers that actually want to fight, it is going to be a good game.

 

At the same time, if the players that don't have any interest in PvP won't be seeing PvPers, then the game should also be good for them. If the system works it will feel like an open PvP game to the ones that want to PvP, and feel like a fully PvE game to the ones that don't want to PvP.

In short, everyone wins, except the players that just want to find defenseless, unwilling victims to grief. And sincerely the game should be better without those.

(Caveat: finding defenseless victims to attack is OK if the victim has actually consented to the risk, which SotA's PvP system, as currently described, allows. So even the prowlers that look for easy marks should be happy as long as they don't mind never seeing or attacking unwilling players.)

 

The people that won't see pvpers are playing the exact same game with less risk.

 

@Acrylic 300

I'm not sure that's true.

For some PvP is the game content. So opting out would be like foolishly playing half the game (or less).
For some PvP will represent less grind or less of some other kind of risk toward achieving the same goal.
For some, not taking a side in PvP effectively puts you into a solo game...which is boring because you can't really play interesting battles with / against interesting people and make drama threads on the forums.
And finally opting out of PvP will simply cut you out of castles sieges or other end game content which really is all about PvP.

 

@PrimeRib
That's all fine if there is something to balance the reward, if not a lot of people will forgo all the "fun" PvP to grind out a house before all the available land is taken.

Me for instance: I'm a PvPer but will not participate in PvP if I think people playing in easy mode will take my land out from under me. Getting a deed anchored is my first priority.

It needs to have a balance like everything else in the game.

PvP has never been a good way to make a living. The encounters are few and far apart compared to farming predictable mobs. They would have to implement something pretty significant to make safely farming mobs less lucrative than playing the high risk game that PvP presents.

 

I think it should be important to have a risk vs reward for PvP. If you accept a challenge or begin one, you should stand to lose something besides 5 seconds of you time and pressing a respawn button.