whiteperegrine wrote:

how I read that is: "the game is being developed around pvp." okie dokie.

1) I'm not actually on gameplay.
2) That's not at all what I said.
3) I am sorry you feel that way.

To try to rephrase what I've said and hopefully not get across the wrong message:

What I would like to see is PCs designed such that their powers do not work radically differently on AI-controlled creatures than they do on player-controlled characters.

That is, if your power makes an AI critter more vulnerable to ice damage, it does the same to a PC. If your power does 100 damage minus defensive whatevers to an NPC, it does 100 damage minus defensive whatevers to a PC.

So if you find yourself playing PvE and then PvP and then PvE again, your powers work the same every time. You're not playing a totally different build because your powers do totally different things.

Segev is our Business Manager, and is not directly involved in gameplay design.

This game is not being developed around PvP, nor will PvE be modified due to PvP balance, if I can possibly help it.

It is true that we are attempting to develop aggro methods that work as if NPCs were also PCs, systems where, if you are taunted, you simply do less damage to everyone except the person you are taunting, for example.

The AI, wanting to do more damage, will, therefore, focus on the taunter.

There are other, similar systems we're working on, where clever use of your abilities will grow and release the attention enemies pay to you, without using a traditional 'aggro' counter.

It's a little experimental, and we still have the traditional aggro method to fall back on, but it's one of the things we've been hoping we can improve in CoT.

If we can get this to work, we can really make combat a bit more interesting and dynamic, without restricting and hardcoding enemy behavior.

@Segev, @Tannim, @Warcabbit This all sounds good to me.

I had understood that Segev and Tannim were trying to say that 'it should be possible to make PvP and PvE work the same, mechanically'. Also, that the NPCs should also work, mechanically, the same as PCs. It's why I suggested that very model, earlier, hoping to defuse some of the tension in this thread.

Meanwhile, the argument had shifted to the 'cultural' issues that separate PvP and PvE. Despite any balance in 'mechanics', the cultural gap is likely to be all but insurmountable. I would suggest that the Devs be cautious about trying to force a bridge between them. [u]That[/u] is almost certain to be a waste of time.

That said, some of the ideas in this thread, particularly about Organized events, fixed locations, and the possibility of 'Televised' coverage and Spectators, could ease some of the division. Players that are entertained by viewing these events might be tempted to give it a try. Especially if there is a 'low-risk kiddie-pool' to try it out in.

Just don't expect ME to do it.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Greyhawk wrote:

Segev wrote:
What prevents people in real life from engaging in obnoxious griefer-style behavior (PvP or PvE) tends to be a combination of social pressure and fear of potentially life-altering retaliation.

Maybe I am unique in this, or maybe I am just delusional, but I would hope that what prevents people in real life from responding with violence to every provocation is the realization that we are all human and we all have the same fundamental human rights.
Not to mention the very real possibility that the person tempted to violence is probably misreading the entire situation and about to cause an irreversible tragedy.
Real life is not the same as virtual life. One of the trends of the past three decades that horrifies me more and more with every passing day is how many tens of millions of people around the world expect virtual reality to mimic reality in every aspect EXCEPT human dignity and civilized behavior.
You know what happens when virtual ethics moves into the real world? Ferguson and Baltimore.

You're delusional...but that's okay because most of the world is crazy.

Segev has me a bit concerned by his use of large words to describe what appears to be an interest in trying to figure out why open PvP or unwilling PvP can be good. I have no desire to examine the Human Condition to this extent. I don't feel that an MMO is the proper forum to be doing research into human behavior.

Some things are bad...always. Bullying is one of these and this IS what will happen in ANY unwilling PvP situation I can think of. I agree with Red in that mixing PvP and PvE will not work. Here's why:

People are more moved by negative experiences than positive ones. Human are wired this way for a reason. Darwinism says that you don't have an infinite number of chances to figure things out. If you keep going out on the limb, it will break. However positive impact is not something that tends to linger on in most people.

I played PvP exactly 4 times in CoX. The first time was fun which prompted me to return. The second time was not but the first one was so I went back again. The third time was also not fun so I quit. The forth time was because a friend of mine wanted to see how the Arena worked. The joy I felt from the first time was easily erased by the unhappiness of the following two. The reason for those two? The players. I was team-ganked by a group of Stalkers who went so far as to Teleport Foe me out of the Hospital so they could defeat me again. I had to log off to change the character and escape.

As long as the PvP players act like jerks and don't police their own, PvP will never be fun for the casual player. You can waste all the time and energy you want building in this option or that safeguard but IMHO the biggest problem with PvP is between the chair and the keyboard. Until you can fix THAT don't waste your time with all the rest.

Try removing the rewards for PvP. ALL of them. No xp for defeating the opponents...no drops...no cash. The only people who will want to play will be the ones who do it for fun (or the ones who want more personal challenge but that's just another type of fun). This will attract the players who just want to have fun as opposed to the badge hunters, gankers and the rest.

Give a gamer rewards for being bad and they WILL be.

Really? I'd expect exactly the opposite. When the sole reward for PvP is the thrill of having beaten another human, that means the people most interested are those who are most invested in picking on others, doesn't it?

The only reward is the fact that I've inconvenienced somebody else; therefore, I only do it if I get my kicks from knowing I've inconvenienced them.

At least, that seems the most likely fallout from such a design decision, to me. Am I missing something?

Heh.

Take Radiac's idea and turn it on its head. If PvP is going to give you awesome stuff, your only chance of getting the best stuff is by Losing ... not by Winning ... in PvP.

Oh sure, doing that would result in cooperative PvP match throwing, due to the "perversity" of the incentives, but then that's kind of the point. Setting up the incentives that way would be going to the maximum extent possible to foil/frustrate the ganker/griefer mentality and support structure.

Heck, I'd be fine with arranging things such that the PvP winner gets nothing and the PvP loser gets a "consolation prize" for their trouble. It would certainly do some very interesting things to the ... shape ... of the PvP community if that happened.

"To lose is to win, and he who wins shall lose."
- The Doctor in [i]The Five Doctors[/i]

Self Flagging is the only system I fan fully support.

As for rewards.. meh.. if the gameplay is right you don't need character rewards (gear) for PvP. I would however be open to social rewards (badges) based solely on participation (not wins nor losses).

Yallo! I'm a little late to the discussion, but I'd like to throw an idea out there backtracking to some ideas.

In the case of 1 vs many, consider the possibility of Friendly Fire. Let's say that while a team flags for PVP, all their attacks become linear cone attacks. If another ally walks in the path of that attack, they take the hit instead of the intended target. This not only reduces the incoming fire from multiple players that the single target has to deal with, but it also forces the team PVP meta game to consider things like "Okay, let's only use fire type ranged attacks, and make sure everyone on our team has high fire resistance" while at the same time paying closer attention to their positioning. Entry level PVP wouldn't need to worry about it too much, but the higher and higher competition level the player reaches, it would become more and more important. Not a complete fix, but it's something that makes sense, possibly more-so than the inverse ninja law.

Segev, the idea of PVP for the sake of PVP is the same as for any other sporting event. You don't play to make somebody lose, or make them feel like you wasted their time, but you play to make yourself win, and to show that the time you put in to everything suddenly feels like it was worth it. Getting a little blue ribbon, or a "Participant" trophy isn't really the main draw for these things. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing something minor for beating other players. A hidden score card that nobody else can look at that you can reset whenever you want for PERSONAL records only. The equivalent drops of a Minion class enemy... Something small.

I suppose I should have clarrified that I was speaking more from a viewpoint of the equivalent to zone pvp. Not organized events. For jumping a random flagged player, I wouldn't offer more than a little bit of influence, and another tic on a score-card that nobody can see but yourself.

In the vein of Competitive, team based pvp however, I know that crowd usually likes their standings and their records, and official events to be public. Having a rotating PVP banner on the launcher that shows a weekly or bi-weekly event with different rules every so often ((1v1, 2v2, 4v4, 8v8, raid-v-raid)) Could in the very least, draw larger numbers of players out more frequently. However, I would almost be able to guarantee that these events would become toxic after the first couple once a few people get a chip on their shoulder's and a good feel for a flavor-of-the-month build.

Ya know, just spitballing some thoughts to keep the discussion going.

Segev wrote:

No, I do understand. My point is more that removing rewards doesn't discourage griefers in the slightest; they're doing it for the "fun" of ruining other people's days. The only ones who'd be discouraged are those who might have more legitimate competitive interests. Not all competitive interest is in proving oneself; some of it is in "make my team do better." REmoving rewards means there can't be a team measure of success based on it, not in the broader game sense.
That said, while I prefer more immersive options, flagged-only is workable in line with most of what I'd like to see happen.

If the rule is 'no intercourse without mutual consent', then that will put a brake on the griefers.

If you desire a 'more immersive' experience, then all we need is a more flexible Flag. One of the setting for that flag must allow the iron-clad "will not PvP no no never ever ever don't even ask" setting for us 'Care Bears'. You can decide how many levels of 'maybe' to include as an exercise in design.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Segev wrote:

I won't belabor the details of "more immersive options," other than to say that even with them I would want it to be always extremely clear before anybody even accidentally flagged themselves that they were about to, and give them a chance to bow out of it.
That said, we're all but certainly going with a hard-set "no PvP" flag as the default, with the option to set it to "PvP yes" only if you actively choose to do so. Obviously, being "no PvP" would mean you couldn't go into PvP-only events (like arena type things, or the like). I'd want us to be EXTREMELY careful with those, because we'd want to make sure you couldn't go into them, get flagged for PvP, then have it fail to turn off when you leave (unless you wanted it left on). That's the kind of bug I foresee and want to be very vigilent against.

As long as this remains true, the PvP design can pretty much go wherever time and resources allow it to go.

One of the things that seems universal to successful PvP is a formalization of the contest. An arena with a definite "fight starts now" type of thing is how most of the popular WoW PvP happens (or, at least, it's how my brother plays it preferentially). MOBAs have definite starts-of-contest and final victory conditions whereby the contest ends. The most popular ideas so far for CoT have been "competitive missions," wherein the players all sign up to be on opposite sides with opposing victory conditions (at least, that's what it's seemed to be to me).

The unpopular, hated aspects, on the other hand, seem to center around the risk of being ambushed, dragged into a hopelessly uneven fight, and being unable to escape the consequences without leaving the game.

It goes a little beyond just the option of whether to "flag" for PvP voluntarily, and to a point of how a game differs from reality. In reality as in games, people don't [i]like[/i] being on the losing end of an ambush (in fact, it's often fatal in less civilized societies). We have extensive rules of society and civilization - we call them "laws" in many cases, but there also just exist codes of behavior and social mores - designed to cut down on these hostile, unpleasant acts which at best the "winning side" enjoys. While comic books emulate aspects of this, the narrative structure rarely leaves the heroes in a situation where they really are hopelessly outmatched and doomed to curb-stomp after curb-stomp.

In a game, even one seeking to emulate comic books, the whole idea of a PvP competition generally has to have an element of fairness, so there's both a challenge and a chance to win for all involved. At least at the beginning of the contest. Which means there has to [i]be[/i] a beginning of the contest.

Interestingly, there remains potential for an ongoing PvEvP structure which doesn't need this, but that's because the effects are not so direct. "Joining" on the "losing side" at any given point doesn't have a guarantee of instant and repeated annihilation; you can slowly turn the tide with successes in microcosms where your powers are sufficient.

All of this is to say, the key to direct PvP seems to really center around not just voluntary participation, but the ability to constrain it to a designated time period (at least on the beginning end) which starts everybody on at least [i]known[/i] ground (whether that's "everybody is the same level to start" as in MOBAs or some other baseline of measurement), and with definite victory conditions that, when achieved, [i]end[/i] the contest without forcing the loser into another if he isn't interested.

I totally agree with Segev. People need structure to their PVP, and frankly it didn;t hurt PVE to have that structure either. I liked the Weekly Strike Targets in CoX because it have you something to plan for. I liked that there was a pretty routine time and place to go to find iTrials forming (in the last year of the game it went from Pocket D to Vanguard to new Dark Astoria on the Triumph server, but it always existed).