Anti-Aliased: You don't need PvP to be successful, honest pt. 2
by Seraphina Brennan 
Apr 15th 2009 at 4:30PM
Filed under: Culture, Economy, Game mechanics, PvP, Opinion, Anti-Aliased
The minute you hear about PvP, you know what it is. It's groups of people bashing each other in the face like cavemen. While that's all well and good, combat is only one part of a spectrum of player vs. player activities. We need to stop focusing solely on the idea of PvP combat and perhaps look towards the larger picture of PvP conflict. Final Fantasy XI proves this point through the use of the conquest system. Players weren't bashing each other's face in, yet were participating in a conflict that changed how the game played and simultaneously provided rewards.
On the other side of the galaxy, EVE Online has become notorious for "trader combat." Where players go against one another in order to get goods out to the market and make a profit. Above those acts come social combat, where players make alliances and enemies as they participate in the other aspects of the game. Exploration could even go in this category, as players race through uncharted space to find caches of resources.
These ideas aren't unheard of, but they are unexplored. One of the best examples of how we don't make full use of our genres is the infamous rogue class. Rogues, by definition, are stealthy, thieving, and full of trickery. Their original portrayal in the genre is mostly through non-combat actions, like stealing. Yet, rogues never steal in our online games. Even if they do steal, it's almost always from monsters and not players.
"Once we evolve how we approach PvP, we can start truly integrating the system into our designs, rather than continually tacking on battlegrounds and combat objectives and applauding them as elegant design." |
Past the legal system, there are other methods of conflict. Card games, price haggling at player run shops, even running an actual shop or a locale can give players a brand new perspective of conflict and simultaneously provide another sink for virtual cash in the economy.
The synopsis
Don't feel that a game needs to have PvP in order to be viable. Games that can level their challenges (like Final Fantasy's level capped bosses, which make them eternally challenging) and can also present strong, solid methods of entertainment (like Bioshock's emphasis on storytelling and single-player objectives, rather than splitting resources between single-player and multi-player.)
But PvP as a concept needs to perhaps become broader, centering more on areas of dynamic conflict rather than stagnant combat situations. Even facerolling on your keyboard against someone else facerolling on their keyboard becomes old -- especially when gear differences lock out true, meaningful engagements.
Once we evolve how we approach PvP, we can start truly integrating the system into our designs, rather than continually tacking on battlegrounds and combat objectives and applauding them as elegant design.
Colin Brennan is the weekly writer of Anti-Aliased who knows people will scream about how much of a carebare he is in the comment boxes, just because they didn't read the whole article. When he's not writing here for Massively, he's rambling on his personal blog, The Experience Curve. If you want to message him, send him an e-mail at colin.brennan AT weblogsinc DOT com. You can also follow him on Twitter through Massively, or through his personal feed.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jimr9999us said on 7:11AM 5-04-2009
I respectfully disagree.
For me to spend $15/month on a mmog, I need the total package. PvE, PvP, crafting, gameworld, classes, economy, etc.
Why is WoW so successful? No one gives you the total package like they do. I'm currently playing W:AoR after a year w/ LotRO. I was willing to give up better PvE and crafting for PvP, classes, and for me, gameworld. But I miss WoW sometimes still, for the balance that game has.
For pure PvE, I'll play Fallout 3 or Fable 2. The point of a mmog is to provide the entire breadth of gameplay options.
Reply
snowleopard233 said on 4:55PM 4-15-2009
A lot of people don’t like playing FFXI because it’s a completely boring grind-fest. Just reading this sites beginners guide to Vanadiel alone reminds me how much of an arduous bore that game was and how difficult it was just to get started. I don’t know if it’s changed, but when I joined, you couldn’t pick your own server and you couldn’t make more than one character without paying extra. The story was downright juvenile and I one had to grind up twenty levels and go digging around just to find quests that didn’t even give exp! I hardly call those odd reasons for quitting.
As for PVP, I agree that an mmo doesn’t need the feature to survive. However, I don’t think allowing stealing and piracy like seen in Eve and Darkfall is the best approach. It works for players who want a hardcore experience and are willing to deal with seeing all their months of hard work get taken in the blink of an eye, but most players are looking for a less punishing experience.
More than anything, I feel that the fun factor should be reward enough. WoW players are now flocking to Wintergrasp in the droves because it allows you to drive vehicles, fire cannons, and break apart structures. There are rewards for winning, but more than anything players find the mechanics of the experience to be the ultimate incentive. Rather than focus on loot, gold, and points, mmo designers need to go back and see what makes the core experience fun rather than what carrots they can place at the end of the stick.
Reply
Pedro said on 5:38PM 4-15-2009
I think you make good points except in this little part:
"There are rewards for winning, but more than anything players find the mechanics of the experience to be the ultimate incentive. Rather than focus on loot, gold, and points, mmo designers need to go back and see what makes the core experience fun rather than what carrots they can place at the end of the stick."
Currently a great majority of MMO players don't care about fun but about the carrots in the end of the stick. Heck, one of the games that suffers the most wiith this mentality is WAR.
The PvP there when it happens is a blast, really entertaining. However, in the vast majority of times the players prefer to attack empty keeps and BOs because it has bigger carrots. And this in a game where gear is not that important to the PvP (you need to obtain gear for the PvE and the fights against Fort Lords and Capital City encounters).
In my opinion what Collin Brennan is defending is that PvP needs to evolve beyond BGs and player combat. However many games already did that! Hell, he even mentioned them.
EVE, WAR, Darkfall and other games all have a PvP system where combat is only part of the picture. They all have different systems but did many things beyond tacking battlegrounds. They have fully fledged PvP systems (some of those games still need a lot of improvements like WAR and Darkfall though). The average MMO player is more interested in PvE than PvP.
Plastic Rat said on 4:20AM 4-16-2009
It's been basically proven that WoW players will do just about anything for purple loot.
The reason the Arena popularity has dropped? It's no longer the easiest source of loot. What does that say about how many people played Arena before because they enjoyed it?
Wintergrasp? Haven't been there in ages, but it offers some pretty decent rewards so I'll tell you there's a much better likeliness that players are going there because of the rewards than because they actually enjoy the experience.
Look at the huge problem Bliz had (and I think still has) with people basically AFK in battlegrounds. Why would people join a battleground if they didn't want to play it? Answer again, rewards. Purple pixels.
It's got pretty much nothing to do with PvP.
niwaar said on 6:01PM 5-11-2009
"A lot of people don’t like playing FFXI because it’s a completely boring grind-fest. Just reading this sites beginners guide to Vanadiel alone reminds me how much of an arduous bore that game was and how difficult it was just to get started. I don’t know if it’s changed, but when I joined, you couldn’t pick your own server and you couldn’t make more than one character without paying extra. The story was downright juvenile and I one had to grind up twenty levels and go digging around just to find quests that didn’t even give exp! I hardly call those odd reasons for quitting."
From your WoW logo I tend to believe that you are one of the people who joined the MMO bandwagon with the ultimate in Casual MMORPG experiences. WoW changed the mechanics of how MMO's were designed. Back in the day when EQ, UltimaOnline and FFXI were the mainstays, things were more difficult. They were purposely designed as huge timesinks of games.
I came from those days into WoW where I now make my home. However, as WoW drags on with trying to add "new things" to do, the less things there are actually to do in the game. The PvP in WoW was an afterthought and has actually turned the game on its end and forced the developers to design everything based on PvP damage instead of PvE. What was wrong with the old "glass cannon" vs "hardened warrior" mentality? Its gone because all classes need to be able to be countered and survivability is more important than fun in PvE.
In the end, recently I have been wanting to go back to FFXI purely for that "grind" and the "juvenile" storylines that you so hugely dislike. The story in FFXI actually keeps you interested. The grind is actually an entertaining way to spend an evening. It is true that most quests are completely worthless xpwise, but they are actually interesting unlike the "go kill 10 boars" and "go fetch me 15 rocks" quests of other MMOs. What you disdain so much is actually why the game still has 500k subscribers. Yes, the game has not matured much past its heyday with its 2nd expansion, but its a constant and its fun. Not to mention the single best aspect of the game ... The fact that things are actually dangerous. Things can kill you whereever you go. Its not the "safe" world of other MMOs where everything is soloable or duoable. The "real" monsters are the ones that require a full party to even be close to survival.
danarchy said on 5:29PM 4-15-2009
I have always liked having both, but it is not really a requirement for me. I liked the looting system the original asherons call had, you got to loot a random item or two off a guys corpse if you fried him in pvp. Having been on the receiving end of losing a couple prize pieces never spoiled the joy of looting others to me. But on the other hand imagine what wow would be like right now if the classes weren't constantly rebalanced to appease the 10% of players that do arena, likely a whole lot better game.
Reply
danarchy said on 5:34PM 4-15-2009
heh I just looked it up, less than 7% of wow players have arena ratings =P
Reply
Sighit said on 8:51PM 4-15-2009
Thank you for this. When I play an MMORPG I want just that, an RPG. If I want PvP I will go play a game thats built around competitive play. No game can be balanced for PvE and PvP at the same time, and I'm sick of seeing games try. PvP is plenty entertaining, but I would be much happier with an online game that is BUILT for PvP, namely, not an MMO.
Reply
Cyron said on 6:07AM 4-17-2009
Wanting an RPG element from a MMORPG? A good RPG experience is probably the one thing that every single MMO is universally atrocious at. I was only able to start enjoying MMORPGs when I was able to accept the fact that the RPG part of the title did not mean RPG in anything like the manner of single player CRPG games
Dethgar said on 11:41PM 4-15-2009
Name a successful MMO that does not have PvP in any shape or form. Go.
Reply
Plastic Rat said on 4:14AM 4-16-2009
If your criteria for 'successful' is a playerbase of around 11 million players, then you might find your result set slightly skewed.
Remianen said on 4:24PM 4-16-2009
So bad, tacked on PvP (see: EverQuest, City of Heroes/Villains, etc) is better than no PvP at all? Gotcha. Don't agree with it (by any stretch of the imagination), but I get it.
Maggus said on 5:07AM 4-16-2009
Your ideas on a legal system are the type of ideas that I believe will bring the next gen MMO's to the top. More realistic activities overall would be really exciting, where players can side with one another to either protect the "laws" of the game or oppose them.
PvP fighting is one of those activities. If there are going to be "laws" and players that protect/oppose them, then there will be fighting. One thing that I believe MMO's should do is stop freely advertising a player's statistics. Players should be cautious when engaging in PvP, specially in open world PvP, and not be able to spot a character 50 levels below them from a mile away. If there are no levels/stats/class advertised then they could be attacking someone far stronger than them, and it makes it harder for them to get a jump on a character without properly scouting them first.
Reply
danarchy said on 12:16PM 4-16-2009
I am pretty sure DAOC didnt let you see another players level, but you could always tell about how tough they would be by the amount of glowy crap they had
Reply
shipwreck said on 9:51AM 4-17-2009
I may be mistaken but didn't UO have a legal system and unrestricted pick-pocketing? I seem to distinctly recall my brother trying to pick a pocket, getting killed, and never touching UO again.
In any case, I wholly agree with just about everything you had to say. LotRO is the only MMO I have time for right now for reasons that I won't get into, but one of those reasons is not that it does everything in a fresh way. Too many games have wholly overlooked these advancements in conflict, as you say, for the sake of either success or some other thoughtless reason.
I've always felt that the System Shock (or even Puzzle Quest) model would work swimmingly in MMO's: that is, all (or most) functions besides combat involve some sort of mini game. Crafting, hacking, haggling, or anything else are all done through some small and fun game that fits nicely within the game proper. Why more MMO's haven't capitalized on this, I don't really know. I think crafting is a case-in-point; everybody complains about crafting because it's just making stacks and stacks of useless crap to get something good. Wouldn't it be more fun, and more rewarding for those players who are good at it, to have some kind of matching game (hell, pick any random cheap flash game) to get the crafting done?
Wow, that's off-topic.
Reply
Dethgar said on 5:33PM 4-16-2009
My criteria for success is a game that turns a profit. I never said I enjoy tacked on PvP, but there aren't many MMO's without a form of PvP that even exist. FFXI is only one and it has an arena system, doesn't it?
Reply
Meanwhile said on 11:40AM 4-22-2009
Seriously, what is your point? What does it matter if every game has PvP, when less than 5% of the player base for a lot of games actually participate in PvP?
PvP is very obviously not contributing to the success of CoH, EQ, EQ2, FFXI, LotRO, etc., so to conflate PvP with success (as you seem to be trying to do) is a huge logical fallacy.
Dethgar said on 1:21PM 4-17-2009
%5 percent on who's scale? Where do you get your information from to support this?
TonyMcS said on 9:19PM 4-16-2009
One thing that comes with advanced age (having played the majority of games since Pong hit the scene) is the realisation that there's not much new in PvP. While WoW is used as the whipping boy for the Hardcore PvPers, it contains:
PvP servers - gank who you like
Dueling - yes very lame, but now we have jousting as well ;-)
Battlegrounds ( I prefer TF2 but it has almost the same maps ;-))
Arenas (Team Deathmatch anyone?)
Wintergrasp - open PvP (Reminds me a little of Enemy Territory or pehaps that's the strand of the ancients bg)
PvP quests (if you want to just feel a little bit dirty ;-))
Virtually all the so-called improvements for PvP in MMOs have existed for a long time in FPS games and their pitfalls and limitations have been examined over and over. A lot of the so-called revolutionary mechanics in Darkfall, I remember playing in Freelancer mods all those years ago and not a month goes by without some MMO announcing some new advance that has already been done to death in Team FPS.
What's the real difference between FPS and MMO PvP? - essentially ping time. While MMO PvP can be exciting, it's like fighting while on depressants. Everything is sooooooo slow and twitch reflexes are useless. Would I rather play Warsong Gulch or 2Fort? - I'm afraid 2Fort gets me everytime ;-)
There are two things that will make PvP in MMOs better. A much faster Internet and more powerful servers to allow for FPS twitch and technology to make the experience more immersive e.g. cheap VR glasses/helmets, feedback devices etc etc. Without these advances, most of the time it's been there, done that.
I do very little PvP in WoW, but still really enjoy the PvE co-op end-game, the storyline, questing and the social gaming - there's enough PvP for the occasional spice, but there's always FPS games to scratch a bigger itch.
Reply