Why PvP?

I guess I thought this was pretty obvious. But it seems people have very different backgrounds. I've never even played UO. In my mind, the purpose of an online game is to interact with other players. But clearly to many "PvP" conjures up all kinds of negative experiences. My hope is to see this game as one of working with others to overcome challenges. Because there simply is isn't someone to write unlimited amounts of story, and the randomness of monster spawns starts getting old, the idea is to crowdsource the story, by allowing other players to influence the world.

As anyone who's ever taken a Bartle Test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test knows, there are four broad categories of gamers: Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers.

Killers want PvP because it's fun
Achievers want it based on Risk vs Reward, or if it offers either a unique or faster path to some end
Explorers want it to unlock some end game content that cannot be achieved through other means
Socializers want it to play with their friends, make new friends, and to have stories to tell about their enemies.

If PvP is designed to appeal only to killers, guess what? PvP will appeal only to killers. No one else will like it. They'll hate PvPers because they're all killers. Thus PvP must appeal to all of these player types. So it must: 1) be fun, 2) provide some opportunity for advancement or otherwise cover its opportunity cost factoring in risks and rewards, 3) unlock some unique piece of end game content, and 4) Provide a reason to form guilds and hold them together. Provide a reason for guilds to form bigger alliances and make friends. Provide epic and important battles worth writing stories about.

So PvP needs to reward more than killers. But it also needs to take into account that not everyone is a killer, and they aren't willing to live with the same punishments killers are. Both rewards and penalties should provide some gratification and sting to all player types.

I like PvP to be integrated into the story. And to have a purpose for shaping the world. Wars are fought over territory for economic reasons. They control resources and trade. Why take a castle for an iron mine if anyone can just mine iron safely outside their house? And further, why would I defend that castle, grow a thriving town, etc. if that cost cannot be offset. Simple economics tells be that if a good can be produced anywhere, there's no reason to take a risk for it...I only take a risk it it can get me into a monopoly situation. This is what drives investment, exploration or simply R&D and patents.

In order to get people to join guilds, siege and hold castles, and build economies around them, the rewards for holding castles must appeal to all of these types of players. If this doesn't work, then there's really no end game. The different player types have no reason to get together. They'll do their own little things until they feel like they've completed it or it ceases to be fun and then it's over.

In addition to strategic PvP, there can also be minigames. These too can at least reward Killers and Achievers. The others may or may not like them. Explorers quickly find them repetitive. Socializers care a bit about scorecards and bragging rights. (Yes, LoL players have fans and groupies.)

Finally PvP can simply be there to "turn up the risk and challenge" to any situation. This again can reward anyone. Again the goal is to look at what each type of player covets and what each type of player fears most. An explorer may generally hate PvP but that fear turns to thrill if he can overcome it and reap the rewards.

I always hates PvP when it basically just existed for killers. You have reds running around with everything to gain and nothing to lose. But instead of focusing on "I don't want any rewards that interest me tied to PvP," you need to think the opposite. What kind of game does interest you? What kind of reward does interest you? What kinds of risks do you not mind or would you mind a whole lot. "PvP" doesn't have to be button mashing combat skills where someone dies at all. It could be a poetry contest. Think of any challenge in the world that might involve multiple parties.

 

You may as well ask, why boxing? Boxing is a sport many enjoy. Many don't. Same with PvP. PvP is no more 'wrong' than boxing, particularly if it is voluntary and consensual. UO had a problem with non-consensual PvP. I think SotA won't have the same problems.

Don't like boxing? Don't get in the ring.

 

I must admit my ignorance of the Bartle Test (I wasn't even aware such a thing existed). and I'm not big on tests that tend to categorize people. I guess I would fit best in the killer/achiever/socializer (K/A/S) category based on the test, "Causing mayhem among computer-controlled people and things may be fun to the Killer, but nothing amounts to the joy of pitting one's skills against an actual player-controlled opponent. For most, the joy of being a Killer results from a friendly competitive spirit. They're in it for the sport, trying to read their opponent's moves and generally acting with honor." That pretty much sums about the way I enjoy to play most video games. I am in it, without a doubt, for the competition and risk elements of a game. I think these types of games result in the strongest communities; people are forced to rely upon one another. I think a sandbox game is the ideal playground for a player who is K/A/S type. It's also primarily the reason why I'm here.

In my opinion PvP is not an option, it is mandatory for a large percentage of the players. Also, there needs to be excitement and risk involved in the PvP architecture. There is nothing that provides the gambling experience, which is exciting and risky more than open, full loot on the PvP setting. The best analogy I guess is playing poker. No other game adds that amount of excitement since the original days of Ultima Online. The only problem with that game was the lack of safe zones for the players who were unskilled/uninterested in PvP.

 

Love PvP? Want to talk about it? You're in the right place!

 

@Primerib

I have seen many of your posts - and you bring up - factions and economic drivers for "story" based PvP and I have to say that your arguments do not compel me to side with you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a PvP fanatic - but I do want to give it a shot in this game if possible. If I find it's not for me then I will play in a different game mode.

To your point of economics - and you not taking risks - unless it has the potential to be in a monopolistic situation. While this seems good in theory - that would actually work against people that do not like PvP. Why - because you will try to bring them into conflict with "resource" holders - and there a lot of people on the forums that don't want anything to do with this. Many have expressed desire to have conflict with kick ass AI - but not PvP players (except the PvP folks of course)

To your second point - you seem to drive the idea that "factions" are the only (maybe the strongest) way to bring forth a "story" driven PvP scenarios - while this may be possible (mind you I'm only saying this for the sake of argument) you neglect to take into account that there is a large role playing population that would truly be discouraged if they were limited in the sandbox potential this game has to offer.

From what I gather from many - even the folks that do not like PvP - is that they want a feudal society. In these worlds (and it already meshes with the kickstarter backer names) - hamlets and what not - these had a varying degrees of organized defenses, at times villages had to rally to defend themselves etc - that already allows for PvP, to drive the point a little further - these communities were somewhat small in size - so the "shard" system that they have going is not a bad way to look at it (massive guild wars for economic struggle would probably tax the game structure - but also not make a lot of sense with what I imagine this game is going to become - but that is just speculation and my opinion - and you are always welcome to yours)

While you may enjoy - Guild Wars - or maybe the new Elder Scrolls Online (they are implementing factions) - there are people that want to create their groups - based on their own "virtues" - even though they may be organizing on "anti-virtues" - what I see from full on PvP is the scenario for a Romeo and Juliet type of "shard" where you have to guilds battling because they have a feud - from the outside looking the violence may look senseless - maybe they it started for a legitimate reason ( a valid reason as a gamer in my opinion is that people want to try their steal, battle prowess etc) - and a feud seems to mesh very well with the community that many what to create here

 

Yes. People that are basically killers just care that someone doesn't screw it up. Fun, somewhat balanced, that you're not unduly punished for it.

@Margard
Again, you're still thinking PvP=button mashing. It doesn't have to be at all. It's simply about some kind of a challenge than not everyone can win all the time. We're put into an online rules where scarcity exists, how do we choose winners and losers? Most battles are decided long before the armies take the field.

Sorry. I keep forgetting what a dirty word "faction" is to some. A group of people getting together for some purpose with some set of common ideals or "virtues". Basically what you describe <i>is</i> a faction. As a general rule, some leader had an economic incentive, gets people to follow him/her by appealing to both emotions/ideology and reason (you will be rewarded).

 

@PrimeRib

All gaming boils down to pressing buttons - and for PvP pressing them rapidly - but there are other elements to PvP that you may not be aware of - primarily because you may not see it as rewarding (or possibly not as rewarding as another form of PvP) - that is not to say that other people do not see it as rewarding.

I am not a PvP expert but I want to try it out in SotA - I play PvP in LOTRO - but that is hardly exciting - its fun at times - but not that exciting in a manner where I feel that I am in true danger. I know that may sound weird - but to me its fun because its a game (I would hate to live through this in real life) - I enjoy sneaking around a little to get from point A to point B. That is an element that does not involve button smashing - the act of potential for PvP livens up the experience, for a lack of a better word, because there are unforeseen dangers _ real or imagined (I may be in no danger at all if no PK players are around)

I am not a fan of battle royal - mortal combat - type of PvP - that gets boring fast. I agree that "structured" PvP - with goals seems like the way to go - but what that structure looks like - I honestly don't know.

If what you are arguing for is - structured PvP - in a manner that PvP players like - you may want to check out League of Legends and see how that game can be incorporated into this came as a mini game (there are clear and well define goals - there is a lot of live strategy in it - and preparations as well - it does involve button smashing - but structured PvP for a lot of people is an excuse to do button smashing ) ... I'm sure that this concept could be tweeked to fit this game.

If you are looking to redefine PvP or contextualize it in a "setting" - to change the game play mechanics - by adding elements of espionage, stealth missions, political structures etc I don't really know what to suggest - I have never encountered a game like that (that was not turn based or single player game) - I think it could be fun though in this setting - and I would encourage you to continue to define this - if this is what you are advocating for.

What is very clear from the PvP community is that ideally - they do not want PvP to a be restricted to a specific sector in the map - a lot of games do this already - in LOTRO they have the Etenmoors - I have never played WOW but I here they have a similar thing - and after playing LOTRO, this type of PvP seems stagnant/at times very boring (it becomes battle royal - even though that there are strategic goals and places to hold - but not the resource element you are asking for) - but the human element does make it fun at times

Factions - my issue with this word is grounded and attached to current gameplay - in relation with the scope and size of participating parties. In current game play - it forces people to be part of a set of huge 2, 3, maybe 4 factions - and the "story of conflict" is pre defined - for me personally I have not played any game that has made me care a whole lot about their systems - maybe I lack imagination but that's just me - I don't think I can be as passionate for a structure that did not involve real players (people behind - their single avatars) - whatever we call groups of players banding together - I think that a system that allows for diversity - the diversity to craft their own stories is better

- but you are dead on right with calling faction a dirty word; I honestly can't tell you why but it does bother me - but I really could not tell you why (guilty as charged thank you for making be look inside to figure out why )

Lastly, I also saw folks say that regardless of story - people are going to use the game as a tool - medium - to act out their own stories / folks are actually advocating for as much of unstructured game play as possible (some of these folks are PvP - some of them are RP)

 

In this context:

Strategy: Making the game uneven or simply deciding not to fight
Tactical: Moving the pieces around on the map
Execution: the actually mashing of buttons

So LoL is a balanced came. It's all tactics and execution. Chess is all tactics, because the pieces don't actually fight. "Battlegrounds" in WoW or other games would be balanced like LoL if there were no gaps to level / gear.

If it's the execution people have the problem with, I'm perfectly happy to remove that for the "non PvPers". Perhaps they simply see themselves playing a tower defense mini game. And the outcome of this is that it makes the NPC guards harder on the attackers. Or a stealth like game as you suggest where someone tried to sneak through a maze. Basically these kinds of things will unbalance the map for the PvPers to fight on. e.g. if someone can get the door down then I can go straight to the throne room and bypass a guardhouse.


The strategy portion comes down to economic, politics, misdirection at the macro scale. Do I attack castle 1 or castle 2? Do I do a fake attack, etc.? I don't like the so called "faction" games either because they take the politics / economic / role playing out of the game and simply say "you hate these people". I'd rather decide I hated them and then change my mind later and decide the other "side" had a better deal. But even in more or less open game, it generally boils down to two sides for the same game theory reasons that nearly all conflicts end up that way. But the periods of uncertainty in between and interesting. Lineage2 was a completely open game for PvP (you could kill your own party members) but generally the servers would move towards two sides.

 

Here's a link to the Bartle test if you want to try it out.
http://www.gamerdna.com/quizzes/bartle-test-of-gamer-psychology

My results are EKAS, so I would probably play the game as a lone wolf type. I have no problem with open PvP and full loot. But I'm not going to be running around attacking people. I don't care if there's player controlled factions or guilds, I just don't want to be forced to join one. If someone has killer as the lowest attribute on that test, there might not be a way to get them to do PvP. If they want to join a faction it shouldn't make them do PvP.

 

-

 

Iv'e seen the bartles test in people's sigs on darkfall forums and not even close to all of them were killers.

Don't forget PVP is not just killing even though It can be.

Texas holdem, chess, MtGO all full PVP

It's Player Versus Player.

Iv'e decided to just play SotA SP and play Darkfall 2 for online mode.

I have this vision of Chris being king of the fairies in his NOT PVP world.

Let the maggots clean this one up its already dead.

 

@Acrylic:

Good luck man, if they ruin PVP in this game then I will look elsewhere as well. I'm going to keep up the fight and hope that they don't completely give into the carebears. We'll see.

 

@Primerib

To your point about balance game play - I think the PvP community is also worried and concerned over balance game play - It is one of the reasons that PvP players advocate for - easy to replace gear - also because it reaffirms their game play , I have no problem with people advocating for their style of gameplay as long as they leave room for other styles of play as well

At this point we do not know if these - gear gaps - that you mention will be in game. So we can't argue one way or another. We do know that some gear will be better than other but to what degree? None know; at this time except maybe for the Dev's

In terms of your scenario - I don't see a problem - it is your choice to participate or not. I understand that you may feel that this is restricting - but in essence you are restricting yourself - partaking in a battle scenario will be a choice; it is not a requirement, nor will your lack of participation impede the progress of your Avatars story

Further on this topic - I imagine that the dev's can score points with the two camps ( PvE and PvP) by taking the approach of encouraging structured PvP as apposed to encouraging the PvE community to opt in to PvP (mini instances - like the contraband example). For example - say that there are 4-5 Guilds/Factions/Kinships/Ban of people; that don't have any real ill feelings towards one another - but here comes Lord British (or any NPC - what ever works for lore sake) and offers each one a challenge - "stop the assassination": one of the guilds is trying to assassinate a "town mayor" but they are not told which among them is the culprit; or culprits - these assignments have to be opted into - all participants know what the rules are - stop the assassination - but no one knows who is actually going through with the assassination. There would be prices just for participating and a larger price to whomever figures it out and stops the execution or for the team that gets away with it (every guild member - will be flagged - as a participant ) This cloak and dagger game could go on for a weak or two ... this is just an idea of the top of my head; I'm sure others could think of better ones - and can actually structure it in a viable way (this idea would need a lot of refinement)

Not sure if anyone is reading this thread anymore but I want to continue to engage people in conversation - I feel that this is a good way to flesh out why folks are so anti PvP and create creative ways to play "our" style of game where we can mingle a little more with all play styles - as it stands now - both camps are leaning to the "if I don't see you, you don't exist". I think that this hampers the potential for this game to be a great

 

@Margard
My hope is to try to do what you're saying. But remove the Lord British element. Say that once you get a castle, it gets progressively harder to hold. So maybe you script a story over 7 weeks where you can easily lose it the first week, but if you may hold it longer. And holding it may ultimately come down to a weekly zerg vs zerg siege but in the mean time there's ample opportunities for people of all sides to do things which bolster / weaken the defenses. And, ofc, there's a half dozen or so castles in the game. So people don't know which one will be the main target.

And the quests people would do could be sort of half scripted, half random. Like killing some boss somewhere could force one side of the other to have to run through fire. Or more iron / armor donations means more NPCs on either side.

 

@PrimeRib, so you wish to punish success? That seems counter productive.

 

@Owain
No intention of punishing success. But too strong a positive feedback loop and the rich keep getting richer. (I've been on both sides of this).

 

@PrimeRib, I think this is a balance issue that can be addressed in the Alpha/Beta test. Balance can be achieved with finesse rather than a blunt instrument.

 

@PrimeRib

Ok - so after reading some posts of yours and this thread I think I have a clear idea of what you are advocating for - if I'm misinterpreting you please feel free to correct me:

What I think you are looking for: Strategic "macro" PvP - Group oriented - Struggle for Resources - Each scenario location(Castle) has a unique architecture that places certain "demands" on the group holding the location as well as the group - pushing - for control of the location, lastly there are strategic roles for NPC's

So a few questions: You mention that part of the "large scale map" strategy is not knowing witch resource one group will take -

1. Why would another group not select the path of least resistance (i.e.) - if all castles have valuable resources - why would a group not settle for taking another castle that they can control with out the hassle of "battling" for it - if each castle provides unique resources (this is my assumption)

2. How do you see the "castles" - on your computer screen - are they on the large overland map (cloth map) - or are they all located in an "instant" (hex piece on the large scale map)

3. Is this the only style of PvP that you envision in this game - or is this the type of PvP in which you see yourself engaging with the most?

4. Do you craft in the castle? While you hold it? Do you then have to transport the materials back to your "Guild" home?

- What in game advantages (rewards) would a group get - I see that you mention - ability to do a raid a reward of sorts - a challenge - while you do the raid - you also have to worry about opposing PvP players coming to destroy you raid - they have this in LOTRO - and it is interesting, in a good way - but I'm not a huge fan of raids - I do it only to see the content - after I've done that it looses its appeal to me - and I'm not a fan of collecting that +500 orc damage sword - I'd rather - travers a labyrinth, with riddles, death pits, just so I can get materials so I can craft that sword for someone else

- I like your idea - but what would get me to participate more in it - besides having 1 v 1 - in the castle walls - would be the ability to control a basilica (those huge cross bow looking things that can kill a man in one shot) - as part of the defense - or a murder hole (where you would drop - acid - or boiling water - onto you enemies) - or a catapult - something that makes it feel that I'm doing something more than waiting for the opposing team to rush the castle until one group wipes

 

The 2m stretch goal:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/000/498/318/0201ce6a8500a4e24a74de94e173f46d_large.jpg?1365345004

Includes the concept of castles and guild vs guild combat. So I have to assume some thought was put into it already by the dev team.

In answer to your questions:
1) Logically each would control a different resource. Just figure out what players will covet. A color of dye, ore to make glowing armor, whatever. But yes, by all means take the easiest one. But, ofc, that may end up being the best depended one. e.g. day 1 they're all owned by NPCs, after 3 months players finally take the easiest one....it may no longer be the easiest one with players defending it.

2) Both. It's just like a town.

3) No. This is just the most strategic one, which affects the whole map. There needs to be random PvP on the map for solo or small teams looking for it. Control a checkpoint on a bridge, FFA fight over a nightshade spawn, whatever. I like the more casual "battleground" style PvP. There's certainly ways to tally win/loss to supporting one faction/firtue over another but people can play just for fun.

4) Sure. Maybe the point is that it had the only forge that can make xyz.

Your ideas are good. I want to make it valuable and interesting to all types of players. So they have a stake in what happens and can influence the outcome.

 

@PrimeRib: I really like your classifications, but i dont know if the pks/pvpers fit into only one or some of those boxes. I thought it would be fun to give you my take on those 4 categories from the pk, pvper, pve-er, and pve-only player perspective in a table. I am now treating the categories as archetypes that exist to some degree (stronger for some) in most players:

Killers: "want PvP because it?s fun"
- pk player: yes, most challenge possible.
- pvp player: yes, but with some rules that allow you to opt in
- pve player: ok, willing to tolerate pk/pvp as part of the game but mostly avoids it and sometimes enjoys it here and there. probably when in a large comfortable group
- pve-only player: does not enjoy player competition, is often bothered by it, avoids it religiously

Achievers: "want it based on Risk vs Reward, or if it offers either a unique or faster path to some end"
- pk player: yes. all win or all loose. high risk high reward. all the time. everywhere. please please.
- pvp player: yes, but with some rules and mechanics to ensure that people have some consistency in their behaviour, - will not take ultimate risk of pk penalties
- pve player: would like it available in some areas but mostly focuses on low risk low reward
- pve-only player: as long as there is no human intelligence involved, ok. monsters, AI, quests, but no pk/pvp

Explorers: "want it to unlock some end game content that cannot be achieved through other means"
- pk player: yeah, but so far this just doesn't happen in any games properly. (please, Richard, please.)
- pvp player: happy in this area, most games cater to them with special pvp gear, pvp currency, pvp rewards, etc.
- pve player: happy with this... they can always switch to pvp for a challenge between expansion packs and stuff
- pve-only player: what u mean i cant have my cake and eat it too? bah humbug!

Socializers: "want it to play with their friends, make new friends, and to have stories to tell about their enemies."
- pk player: pks are the most social players in the game in general. they thrive on social interaction and ignore NPCs as background noise. with UO in particular this was the case, because the game mechanics pretty much disabled interaction with NPCs and forced you into interacting with players for everything, or simply denied game features to PKs as a penalty. once you got used to interacting with humans for everything you wouldn't miss it.
- pvp player: just like the pks without the negatives/penalties. mostly avoid any AI
- pve player: most are social, some are not, generally keep to the pve crowds and sometimes interact with the pk/pvp crowd for some spice and variety
- pve-only player: likes to socialize in a sandbox similar to a single player game with multi player chat and some shared target collaboration against AI. enjoys non combat socialization for the most part.