Announcements

Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2

Please read the current update for instructions on downloading the latest update. Players with Mac versions of the game will not be affected, but you will have a slightly longer wait for your version of the new maps. Please make a copy of your character folder before running the new update, just to make sure you don't lose any of your custom work.

It looks like we can give everyone a list of minimum specs for running City of Titans. Please keep in mind that this is 'for now' until we are able to add more graphics and other system refinements. Currently you will need :
Windows 10 or later required; no Intel integrated graphics like UHD, must have AMD or NVIDIA card or discrete chipset with 4Gb or more of VRAM
At least 16GB of main DRAM.
These stats may change as we continue to test.

To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.

How to make PVP fun

302 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Not if my Defense/Control

Not if my Defense/Control Stalwart gets there first!

Be Well!
Fireheart

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:

It would be trivial to spawn an NPC with a preset aggro on a particular player. CoH did it all the time; ambush spawns in instance missions would by default target the weakest player. This was most obvious when the players were all in different locations (cave maps were great for this), and you'd see the horde head for one player long before they were in visual, much less aggro, range.
In this discussion, the facts that an NPC does something by design and a PC does things by intent are equivalent for game mechanics and balance purposes. You're gonna get pwned, and you're going to ragequit.

Segev wasn't referring to ambushes. He was referring to an NPC that followed the player character throughout the game, stalking and attacking at random. In Project Gorgon there is a curse that gets applied to a player defeated by a particular boss. For a limited time (72 hours, as I recall), a milder version of the boss will randomly spawn and attack the player, even if they are in a "safe" zone. If that curse had been bugged so that the timer did not end the curse (which was the case when originally programmed, by the way), causing it to continue until the character was deleted, then we would have a situation approximating what Segev is talking about.

The timer was put in place because everyone in the testing complained about the neverending curse. So, yes, players will "rage quit" if they become the target of an NPC programmed to be a constant interruption.

For me, I would have just deleted the character and made a new one and then never matched the new character to the boss with the stalker curse. However, there is a huge difference in intent between a curse put in place by losing to a boss and a player who viciously stalks another player.

NPCs don't have sadistic intent. The programmer who creates the AI might have sadistic intent, but the NPC can't and won't because it is not sentient.

This is a tangible reality. A player-stalker has intent. An NPC-stalker does not. Most players are not stupid. They will know and recognize the difference. In most cases the NPC-stalker would result in a bug report, a fiery forum post, and the creation of a new character. If one player believes they are being stalked by another player, however, they would most likely seek out back channels to lodge the complaint (such as a forum PM to a Moderator) rather than a forum post. Not in every case, naturally, but in most cases.

A cyberbully is much different than an over-aggressive NPC. The latter can be easily fixed. The former can be difficult to identify, difficult to remove, and difficult to prevent from returning after a ban.

Moral equivalency between the two is delusional.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
Greyhawk, you're quite right;

Greyhawk, you're quite right; PCs can have intent, while NPCs cannot. The point of the question is more to analyze what the specific problems are which arise from the persistent murder-bot, whether AI or player-controlled. That is: why is it so bothersome? That you would respond similarly to the glitched NPC and the hostile PC shows that you're taking it in the right spirit, at least. The point of the hypothetical was to make sure that there is no hang-up about it being "well, there's a human on the other end, and THAT makes this bad," even if everything else was the same.

It sounds to me like the real source of the problem, for you, is the consequences and costs of being repeatedly killed. If not that, then something about being repeatedly attacked is, itself, annoying. Is this accurate?

Business Manager

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

It sounds to me like the real source of the problem, for you, is the consequences and costs of being repeatedly killed. If not that, then something about being repeatedly attacked is, itself, annoying. Is this accurate?

My time is valuable. Regardless of whether it is an assassin NPC or a griefer PC, if my character is killed repeatedly by enemies I have no recourse to defend against then it wastes my time. If I am paying for the privilege then in addition to the loss of time there is a loss of money.

Why would I pay for the privilege of being a punching bag?

I have better things to do with my time then satisfying the pain-pleasure curve of sadists, regardless of whether it is a sadistic programmer or a sadistic player.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 22 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Play to Win vs Play to Lose.

Play to Win vs Play to Lose.

Every Player wants to play the game so as to "win" at some aspect of it, which can even include the social competition of Roleplaying. The "impossible" challenge starts falling too far into the Play to Lose direction ... which, incidentally, seems to be a deliberate and embraced design purpose and decision for most Korean Grindfests (although that's a different discussion).

But there is a tipping point between a game being something that can be "played" and won, versus something that can be played and no matter what you're going to lose anyway. I believe this is called Learned Helplessness.

The difference between the assassin NPC and the griefer PC, as Greyhawk puts it, is the attribution of blame for the results of the encounter. With a PC, you can report them to Customer Service for sanction. With an NPC, you can only file a bug report and hope for a patch. Both will draw condemnation on the game's forums, complete with the inevitable "oh I had no trouble beating them, you just suck" scornful replies and bickering. The thing is, both create a toxic brew of resentment that is not ... healthy ... for a game that wishes to sustain itself.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
I don't know. Often times "I

I don't know. Often times "I had no trouble, you're doing something wrong" is correct. Also, some people just do not like to hear their combination of chosen power sets/chosen class/whatever is not the most optimal for whatever the case may be.

Like those who chose the weakest set for damage and force field for their Defender. You had no debuffs, you had no offensive buffs, and unless you built for it, your defense really wasn't that great either. :p

So no, you weren't likely to solo that AV and yes, you were likely to get stomped in PvP. :p You where however good to have on a team :)

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
So, then, if the consequences

So, then, if the consequences of losing (particularly to somebody jumping you) were less of a time sink (or had no real time sink at all), it would be less of an issue, regardless of whether the aggressor was an NPC or a PC?

Business Manager

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
True but there are a lot of

True but there are a lot of people who deeply resent suggesting that we reduce the cost of defeat.
They say it makes the game less immersive if death is no big deal.
Whatever.
I'm just glad I don't have to put in a new quarter every time I die
like when I was a kid.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 22 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Yes ... BUT ... that doesn't

Yes ... BUT ... that doesn't excuse the aggressor being perceived (whether true or not) as having an unfair advantage. When that unfair advantage perception reaches towards Exploit level, the sink reductions stop mattering and it becomes a question of FAIRNESS rather than "discounts" on losses.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

So, then, if the consequences of losing (particularly to somebody jumping you) were less of a time sink (or had no real time sink at all), it would be less of an issue, regardless of whether the aggressor was an NPC or a PC?

Less of an issue, yes, but still an issue if the aggressor is a PC. You're not going to change my opinion of PvP, Segev. I've been playing digital games since Pong. There is nothing casual or temporary about my opinion.

I enjoy teaming, even in PUGs. Socializing (provided it is not forced upon me) is one of the main reasons I play MMORPGs. But when it comes to unprovoked attacks by other players there is only one situation in which I would find this an acceptable form of game play: in a free-for-all PvP environment designed to encourage anarchy (such as in the recent crop of survival games).

Naturally I would never play such a game. Therefore, in any game I am willing to play there is no situation where an unprovoked attack by another player would be acceptable to me. It does not matter how completely the game mitigates the consequences. It does not even matter if I am capable of winning three out of four encounters or better.

If I wanted to play a PvP game I would play one. There are hundreds of them out there, possibly thousands. Several of them are fairly large. The world does not need another PvP game. If anything, we have too many of them now.

NPCs don't have feelings. They can be programmed to mimic feelings, but with the current level of technology it is impossible for them to actually experience feelings.

Coming out of a mission door to find an NPC ambush waiting is disconcerting, but not gamebreaking, and in many cases can be very entertaining.

Coming out of a mission door to find a PC ambush waiting is completely unacceptable.

The difference is intent.

NPCs are not people. People are not NPCs. Efforts to equate the two are delusional.

If I want to challenge my skills against another person I'll play chess or poker or perhaps Magic: the Gathering. I don't play MMORPGs to pit my "skills" against other people. The medium is incapable of providing fair, skill-based encounters.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

Greyhawk, you're quite right; PCs can have intent, while NPCs cannot. The point of the question is more to analyze what the specific problems are which arise from the persistent murder-bot, whether AI or player-controlled. That is: why is it so bothersome? That you would respond similarly to the glitched NPC and the hostile PC shows that you're taking it in the right spirit, at least. The point of the hypothetical was to make sure that there is no hang-up about it being "well, there's a human on the other end, and THAT makes this bad," even if everything else was the same.
It sounds to me like the real source of the problem, for you, is the consequences and costs of being repeatedly killed. If not that, then something about being repeatedly attacked is, itself, annoying. Is this accurate?

The difference between acceptable and unacceptable is found in agency. Of the subjected player to be precise.

If an interaction outside of the expected norm of the game is forced upon you then as a player your agency is taken away from you.
The PvP griefer ruins your game (by interfering with your ability to play the game itself) for his own entertainment.
The glitching NPC you posited does the same, in that at any moment the game can drag you away from whatever goal you're attempting to achieve and force you to deal with that NPC.
Autoflagging is potentially bad for the same reason. It changes the way you interact with the game without your attention. Somebody else (either the game mechanics or another player exploiting them) made that decision for you and took your agency away.

By volunteering for PvP you keep your agency because you made that decision, even if you can not control the time, location and form of the combat. Signing up for PvP you knew that was what was going to happen.
Ambushes at the end of a mission are a logical extension of the mission itself and while potentially annoying they are not outside of the scope of the game. Of course an ambush 50 levels above your character is not as there is no plausible way to deal with that within the expected logic of the game.
Sending a player to a too high level zone, or to a PvP zone, are questionable at best, because you either, or both, are unable to deal with the situation in most cases (taking away your agency to deal with the problem presented to you by the game), or you're forced into a situation that you do not want to be in (taking away your agency to play the game the way you want to).

If you think of games as a puzzle, where your character has a limited toolset and the missions and encounters pose a problem to be solved with that toolset, then taking away your agency amounts to either a puzzle that can not be solved with the tools you got, or the rules of the puzzle suddenly being changed on you. Both are frustrating to the players.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Greyhawk wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:

Segev wrote:
So, then, if the consequences of losing (particularly to somebody jumping you) were less of a time sink (or had no real time sink at all), it would be less of an issue, regardless of whether the aggressor was an NPC or a PC?

Less of an issue, yes, but still an issue if the aggressor is a PC. You're not going to change my opinion of PvP, Segev. I've been playing digital games since Pong. There is nothing casual or temporary about my opinion.
I enjoy teaming, even in PUGs. Socializing (provided it is not forced upon me) is one of the main reasons I play MMORPGs. But when it comes to unprovoked attacks by other players there is only one situation in which I would find this an acceptable form of game play: in a free-for-all PvP environment designed to encourage anarchy (such as in the recent crop of survival games).
Naturally I would never play such a game. Therefore, in any game I am willing to play there is no situation where an unprovoked attack by another player would be acceptable to me. It does not matter how completely the game mitigates the consequences. It does not even matter if I am capable of winning three out of four encounters or better.
If I wanted to play a PvP game I would play one. There are hundreds of them out there, possibly thousands. Several of them are fairly large. The world does not need another PvP game. If anything, we have too many of them now.
NPCs don't have feelings. They can be programmed to mimic feelings, but with the current level of technology it is impossible for them to actually experience feelings.
Coming out of a mission door to find an NPC ambush waiting is disconcerting, but not gamebreaking, and in many cases can be very entertaining.
Coming out of a mission door to find a PC ambush waiting is completely unacceptable.
The difference is intent.
NPCs are not people. People are not NPCs. Efforts to equate the two are delusional.
If I want to challenge my skills against another person I'll play chess or poker or perhaps Magic: the Gathering. I don't play MMORPGs to pit my "skills" against other people. The medium is incapable of providing fair, skill-based encounters.

I don't know. Villain sees hero and attacks, seems like a valid reason to see player and attack without being provoked. Not that all villains would be this way of course.

I don't know if I totally agree on the incapable part either. More like, even if it was skill based and fair, if someone loses they can just as easily say it isn't regardless of evidence to the contrary and they'll have people who back them up.

This isn't to say you should like to PvP. I just have talked to people about it, and there are just plenty of people who do not like to lose. They don't like to lose against NPCs either, at which point they lower the difficulty or quit because as they have said "I don't come to lose. I come to relax and just win"

They want the easy win and they for sure don't want any penalty for losing. :p

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
I am not really trying to

I am not really trying to change anybody's opinion about PvP. I am trying to analyze why it is an irritant.

Greyhawk's input is interesting because he cares about the intent of the aggressor. I will ask, if he could literally not tell an NPC from a PC because the A.I. for the NPC could pass the Turing Test (literally, it could make it impossible for him to tell if it's a machine or a person), would that make a difference? Would finding out that the NPC that had been giving you so much trouble was actually a PC change the experience? Would finding out that the PC that was giving you so much trouble was actually an NPC change how annoyed you now feel about it?

Reducing penalties for "death" is one approach, though if that approach were taken, I'd prefer to see it along the lines of the "retreat" button: you're not going to have actually "dying" cost less, but you can avoid death altogether by surrendering any claim to victory in your current encounter.

As far as agency, while I am interested in ensuring that you can't have griefers abuse the INABILITY to be targetted for PvP (e.g. by playing the hero/villain in villain/hero areas and taunting the 'rightful' denizens of those regions with how you're terrorizing their NPCs and they can't do anything about it), I am also interested in preventing unwilling and unwittingly being flagged for PvP. Whether it be that entering a given zone where your alignment is "unwelcome" or targetting NPCs who have the ability to send up a "help us/save us!" flag which would make you a legal target for PvP, I'd want there to be some sort of warning: "take this action and you become vulnerable to PvP," before you actually got flagged.

One possible scenario: You're Hero McGoodguy, and you're cleaning up crime in the Bad Part Of Town(tm). The thugs you're rounding up for arrest call out a threat: you'll be sorry when SuperTough Thugguy shows up! What happened in the background was that villains of these thugs' faction/alginment/whatever got a mission request: "Help us take down the meddling dogooder Hero McGoodguy," and SuperTough Thugguy accepted it. When SuperTough arrives, you'll be given a dialog box or other indicator that if you don't hit the "retreat" button shortly, you will be flagged for PvP and have to defend yourself against him while trying to take on these thugs.

You were taking actions which, if you know the game at all, make you at risk for PvP, and you were given an option to retreat from them before PvP started. At that point, I think you qualify as having volunteered for PvP if you don't back out.

Business Manager

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 22 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Segev, you're trying to

Segev, you're trying to square a circle. Good luck.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
I'm not sure that I am, but I

I'm not sure that I am, but I won't pretend it is a trivial problem. My big issues are verisimilitude and the problems that occur when designers forget that griefers aren't about one particular MEANS of ruining people's games; they're about finding a way to exploit the rules as they stand to ruin people's games. Thus, "no PvP" will also be abused by those who wish to grief others; they'll just find a way to abuse their untouchability.

Business Manager

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
I have seen players complain

I have seen players complain about "flagging for PvP" to complete some content, even if the content was completable without actually getting flagged for PvP. You just had to *think* about how to do it.

Sure, you could target the enemy players... they were valid targets. But if you stuck with just the NPC's at the time, the "normal" difficulty ones, and not the "These ones are the guards of the Enemy player area" you could complete the content without getting flagged.

So yeah, some players complained about the content being uncompletable without getting flagged for PvP. That was a total lie. You could. You just had to THINK about what your target was first of all. And if you cannot learn through failure, then sometimes games are just not the thing for you.

I have seen people *destroy* their keyboard just because they got defeated in content that they *felt* that they could complete. Which was untrue. They shouldn't have been able to. But because they didn't... they raged.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
How is it a penalty to PvE

How is it a penalty to PvE players who are unflagged (and unattackable) in PvP to not receive PvP rewards? MWM should never make a PvE mission that requires PvP.

Crowd Control Enthusiast

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
This scenario requires me to
Segev wrote:

One possible scenario: You're Hero McGoodguy, and you're cleaning up crime in the Bad Part Of Town(tm)...

This scenario requires me to take action in order to avoid PvP. To retreat from completing my business of cleaning up a pack of thugs and handing them over to the police.

I would rather play in a world where PvP 'doesn't exist' (even though it does), so my 'Absolutely No PvP' switch ought to allow me to throw hand-grenades into the crowd of enemy without touching/aggoing/triggering the 'this will flag you for PvP' targets.

Let's run that scenario again, only with proper 'No-PvP' flagging.

Hero McGoodGuy is wrapping up thugs, the 'encounter manager' took note that Hero was flagged 'Some-PvP' back when he started this encounter and sent out the call for a response. The Scenario plays out as you described, with the PC villain showing up as and ambush, or an end-boss. The PC hero might even have Police back-up, at that point, having sent out his own call, in response to the threats.

If that flag was set to 'Yes-PvP' then the villain might have been gated into the encounter in the Middle and the hero could be in trouble. If that flag was set to 'No-PvP' then the call never went out and no PvP encounter was generated.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
The trouble with that,

The trouble with that, Fireheart, is the converse.

Villain McBadguy goes into the good and virtuous heart of all that is right in the city, and starts terrorizing civilians. He has "No PvP" set, and so cannot be targetted. He spams any and all chat channels he can with braggadocio about how mighty he is, how powerless the heroes are to stop him, and goes out of his way to terrorize "good" NPCs in front of players of heroes who are now forced to stand around and watch or blatantly ignore this highly villainous behavior right in front of them, all because they truly are rendered powerless against him by his "no PvP" flag.

The correct way, to my mind, to think about how your Hero McGoodguy should be cleaning up thugs is to stay in areas where they don't get to flag for a mission for villains to come help them.

I'd also suggest that the flagging might be seen as a timer: you have until a villain accepts the mission and gets to you to finish off these thugs without having to either engage in PvP or flee. Would you have a similar problem if the thugs could instead start a timer whereby, if you haven't gotten them all by the time it's out, they escape?

Business Manager

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
Segev, have you played other

Segev, have you played other games with PvP optional flagging?

If someone attacking their NPCs in front of you would bother you then just switch instances or use your imagination. What does it matter to you?

Someone else's fun doesn't affect you. If it's truly annoying simply put them on ignore. The idea that "I shouldn't see people play as bad guys as a good guy" is simply a false argument to me. The issue isn't that they are an opposing faction.. the issue is that they are simply a player that you don't want to engage with. So don't.

Crowd Control Enthusiast

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
JayBezz wrote:
JayBezz wrote:

How is it a penalty to PvE players who are unflagged (and unattackable) in PvP to not receive PvP rewards? MWM should never make a PvE mission that requires PvP.

Actually this was a PvE (started) quest that the player could do. It was *entirely* optional, and you wouldn't get it unless you went looking for it (or stumbled on the mob that started it off).

Enemy players were valid targets. Enemy Elite Guards were valid mobs. NORMAL enemy mobs were also valid targets.

You could complete the quest 100% without engaging in PvP if you so desired. You just stuck to the normal enemy mobs. And infact, if you timed it relatively well, several players could chain on the one NPC for credit.

In fact, it was actually *easier* to do it that way, without engaging the targets that initiated PvP than it was to *engage* those same mobs (even if the quest item reduced the difficulty of the elites down to "normal" level).

If there was "griefing" going around, I never saw it. I once spent 4 hours sat in the quest area... totally AFK. I didn't die once.

Maybe it was just the Wildstar crowd for this, but it sure seemed a lot less than I thought it would have been. Hell, even the open world PvP zones on WoW PvE servers seem more laid back. Could be an EU thing, but the *vast* majority of times I found people were not dicks on my server.

Sure, you cannot have 100% success rate, but as CoX never defeated that problem, I think that the only way to prevent greifing[1] is to just make the game single player.

[1] Of all types. Not just PvP griefing

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

Maybe it was just the Wildstar crowd for this, but it sure seemed a lot less than I thought it would have been. Hell, even the open world PvP zones on WoW PvE servers seem more laid back. Could be an EU thing, but the *vast* majority of times I found people were not dicks on my server.

I love PvP but could not really hang on an all PvP server in Wildstar. I found a great group of players on the PvE side that were perma-flagged however whenever I wanted to engage. BUT if (for some strange reason) I wanted to complete a mission where others were flagged for PvP and I would be attacked I could simply unflag and complete the mission as I wanted.

The Brain squid mission in Wildstar is great fun, and can completely be done in complete PvE. I must say the line of reasoning from some devs have me really questioning who is in charge of mission design.

Crowd Control Enthusiast

Felix
Felix's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 4 months ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/04/2013 - 20:45
JayBezz wrote:
JayBezz wrote:

Segev, have you played other games with PvP optional flagging?
If someone attacking their NPCs in front of you would bother you then just switch instances or use your imagination. What does it matter to you?
Someone else's fun doesn't affect you. If it's truly annoying simply put them on ignore. The idea that "I shouldn't see people play as bad guys as a good guy" is simply a false argument to me. The issue isn't that they are an opposing faction.. the issue is that they are simply a player that you don't want to engage with. So don't.

FWIW, JayBezz, i agree with you. There may be some players who just cannot abide that sort of behavior, but generally I don't care what other players are doing. Griefers (in this scenario) only have the power you give them to affect you. I am aware that I may not be representative. There are enough folks on our MWM team who have this concern that I recognize that I may just have a blind spot for that part of our potential population.

Know thy users for they are not you.

Felix

Know thy users, for they are not you.
"Preliminary optimization is the root of all evil." -Knuth
Coding Lead
a.k.a. Mr Sigma, Mr. Stochastic, Balancing Act, The Oncoming Storm

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
First, the only way I can

First, the only way I can think of for a PC to give anyone grief while hiding behind a "I'm not flagged from PVP so you can't touch me" shield would be kill stealing. That and just being annoying in chat I guess. I don't think anyone is RPing so hardcore that they'd get upset that a villain is mugging passer-by and not allowing PVP heroes to thwart them. I think you just ignore that guy, if he's only picking on NPC mobs of innocent civilians, callous as that sounds. I mean we all ignored the Atlas Park purse snatchers by the time we were level 15, this is no different. If the griefer isn't directly messing with ME, I can pretty much ignore them can't I? Kill stealing is the main problem there and flagging the kill stealer for PVP is probably not the answer to that anyway.

Second, I think the PVP that is the most fun without being a big grief-fest perpetrated by griefers is when you have organized "show up at the agreed-upon place at the agreed-upon time and enter the big PVP fest" type events. Not just general all-the-time PVP zones, which are often empty and end up being a bunch of would-be griefers waiting for a victim, but rather specific events designed to place those who enter into them in a PVP setting with winners and losers, publicly-recognized glory for winning, maybe prizes of some kind, etc. THAT, I believe will create fun PVP for those who want it without ruining everyone else's day. In MAgic: The Gathering, they don't just sell you cards and go "okay, there you go, find an opponent on your own and figure out a time and place to play the game, we don't do that for you." they have tournaments all over the world at all times of year. And they have Friday Night Magic, which is a weekly thing they encourage/support at local stores for this reason. Competitive people need structured events to participate in to get them all together in the right place at the right time.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
JayBezz wrote:
JayBezz wrote:

Segev, have you played other games with PvP optional flagging?
If someone attacking their NPCs in front of you would bother you then just switch instances or use your imagination. What does it matter to you?
Someone else's fun doesn't affect you. If it's truly annoying simply put them on ignore. The idea that "I shouldn't see people play as bad guys as a good guy" is simply a false argument to me. The issue isn't that they are an opposing faction.. the issue is that they are simply a player that you don't want to engage with. So don't.

I fail to see how this argument doesn't apply to a player who chooses to PvP you. Just shift instances and ignore them.

Note that I'm not arguing in favor of universal PvP. I'm mostly just looking at what the situations are as they arise.

Personally, I have avoided PvP in MMOs as a general rule. I simply don't see it working well in this game; segragating players by alignment is, to me, a very poor idea, especially if we want to have any sort of impact of player actions on the world. If we want to abandon that idea (and I wouldn't be surprised if many wished to), we could make separate worlds and assume evil is monolithic and thus never turns on itself and that heroes never fight each other.

Business Manager

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

The trouble with that, Fireheart, is the converse.

I don't completely disagree with that. I have played DCUO and had villains rush in and 'corrupt' the civilians I'm trying to rescue. It Did make me mad and I Did want to 'do something about it', and the game didn't give me that option.

-Not Unless I Was Willing To Make An Ass Of Myself By Challenging/Taunting The Villain-

One reason why it worked that way is that the Police in the scenario were 'overwhelmed' by the presence of NPC baddies, so there were not enough of them to challenge the Villain. My mission was to defeat the baddies and rescue the civilians - as a hero. Later, on my reluctant villain character, I got the Other mission, to defeat Police, defend baddies, and use corrupting drugs on civilians. It was a stalemate situation where only the PCs could make effective progress. Neither the police nor the baddies Would effectively assist the PCs, though they could be an annoying threat, if aggroed.

For me, the worst part was that I Could Not Heal, Protect, or Defend my rescued civilians from the Villains. I beat off the baddies, haul the citizen out of a burning car, and I'm convincing them to calm down and make their way to safety, when the Dastard zips in, tags them with the toxic needle, and runs off. And then my rescuee goes berserk and I have to beat them too! And I get no credit for the save.

Instancing would be a valid solution to the conflict, but might be seen as segregation. Being able to summon more NPC backup, to deal with the opposition PC could work, but might be seen as griefing. PCs with 'Support' powers might be able to shield, heal, and even 'damage aura' NPCs... might be griefing, again.

Your 'Villain McBadguy' would attract the attention of not only PC heroes, but NPC heroes and police units, if he's street-sweeping. Otherwise, Villain McBadguy and his Heinous Crew are in an instanced mission where they can't offend other players... directly.

Of course, then there's the other perfectly valid solution - Civilians can be immune to PC effects.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
Radiac

RadiacI think the PVP that is the most fun without being a big grief-fest perpetrated by griefers is when you have organized "show up at the agreed-upon place at the agreed-upon time and enter the big PVP fest" type events. Not just general all-the-time PVP zones, which are often empty and end up being a bunch of would-be griefers waiting for a victim, but rather specific events designed to place those who enter into them in a PVP setting with winners and losers, publicly-recognized glory for winning, maybe prizes of some kind, etc. THAT, I believe will create fun PVP for those who want it without ruining everyone else's day. In MAgic: The Gathering, they don't just sell you cards and go "okay, there you go, find an opponent on your own and figure out a time and place to play the game, we don't do that for you." they have tournaments all over the world at all times of year. And they have Friday Night Magic, which is a weekly thing they encourage/support at local stores for this reason. Competitive people need structured events to participate in to get them all together in the right place at the right time.[/quote wrote:
This, on the other hand, makes a significant amount of sense. PvP as an organized event really is how MOBAs and similar things make it work. They pair people and/or teams into matches and let them go.

This is somewhat what I'm suggesting with the "NPCs being attacked call for help" examples. (I need a better short-hand name for that.) There is no situation wherein you simply are flagged PvP just for existing. Certain activities, however, such as street sweeping, can create potential for PvP encounters. By engaging in it, you are put on an effective timer as the targets put out a call for help. A PC who answers that call causes you to get a message informing you that somebody is incoming. You can bow out at any time by conceding that event.

Warnings could go off first, too: "You don't know who you're messing with! We're [faction], and we've got friends!" or somesuch dialog (written more compellingly by our writing staff) might trigger some time before the mission option goes out to other PCs in the area to respond. If we wanted to get fancy, such groups could have a metric that tells you how close the nearest possible respondant to one of their cries for help would be, and estimated time-to-arrival of the one with the best possible one.

Avoiding these would be as easy as picking your fights in areas more controlled by your own "side" (or at least, not picking on people in areas they control). Nothing prevents you from street sweeping. Just do it in safer areas.

As I'm not actually on the gameplay team, this is all speculative on my part, anyway, for the record.

Business Manager

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 22 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

Villain McBadguy goes into the good and virtuous heart of all that is right in the city, and starts terrorizing civilians. He has "No PvP" set, and so cannot be targetted. He spams any and all chat channels he can with braggadocio about how mighty he is, how powerless the heroes are to stop him, and goes out of his way to terrorize "good" NPCs in front of players of heroes who are now forced to stand around and watch or blatantly ignore this highly villainous behavior right in front of them, all because they truly are rendered powerless against him by his "no PvP" flag.

/em sigh

The solution to a situation in which an obnoxious PC can only be attacked by NPCs ... is to give affronted PCs the capacity to Summon NPC Reinforcements to dogpile the obnoxious PC. Whether it's to the Police Department or to Crime Lord Headquarters doesn't really matter. Give the home field PCs the capacity to summon "hordes" of hostile NPCs to take down the interloper PC and you've got yourself a PvEvP situation.

If the obnoxious PC broadcasts and taunts the affronted PCs to converge on the location of the Obnoxious One ... who is at "fault" for that?

Heck, let's take this out of the game context in cast it in real life terms.

When there is gunfire in a policed neighborhood of city, it's the citizens (ie. civilians) who call 911 who dispatches officers to the scene to deal with it professionally.

When there is gunfire in a crime lord's home turf in a city, it's the citizens (ie. civilians) who tip off the Protection to dispatch the bruisers to the scene to deal with it ... professionally.

Either way, the assumption is that the witness to the trouble doesn't have to personally intervene to stop it. There are other people who can be summoned to the scene to deal with the problem. The same can be true inside of a game like City of Titans so long as the PCs can summon NPCs to the scene to do the fighting for the affronted PC. Needless to say, this sort of thing should only be "allowed" in situations of pretty disparate Alignments (low Law vs high Law, for example) and ought to relate in some way to the "character" and nature of the environment (ie. neighborhood) to determine which side of the confrontation is the "home team" and which one is the interloper to be ejected.

So if you allow PCs to summon NPCs to deal with the situations and circumstances you describe, Segev, then direct confrontation PvP style is not required ... so long as enough affronted PCs show up to "drown" the obnoxious PC under a dogpile of hostile local combatant NPCs.

So under which circumstances would a PC be given the right/permission to do such a thing? Well, it depends on what the PC's reputation is with various NPC Groups. If you've got a great relationship going with the TCPD, you can call in the TCPD. If you've got a great relationship going with the Air Pirates, you can call in the Air Pirates. And so on and so forth. This means that even if you've got two "hero" PCs, the NPCs that they can summon to deal with an obnoxious PC interloper could be completely different {hint hint}. And the more NPC Groups that your PC is "friendly" with, the more NPC Groups your PC can summon in the circumstances you describe.

"Get everybody down here."
"Everybody?"
"EVERYBODY!!!!!"

Put those summons onto a cooldown timer and/or set them up such that every summoned NPC who gets defeated "costs" the reputation of your PC with that group (so don't use them as loose cannon fodder if you want them to stay friendly) and you start having a bit more of a game.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I personally would like to do

I personally would like to do solo missions, raids, TFs, trials, and street sweep without having to mark myself for any unwanted PVP in the process. I'm not fond of the idea of "PVP zones" for that reason, and I certainly don't want ALL areas to be places where I might get PVPed just for engaging in some PVE street sweeping (or even just for being there out in the open).

Personally I can do without the "your actions have consequences" factor in, like, all of this. I don't have a problem with the overall storyline of the game being what it is regardless of what I personally did in my missions. I like having a somewhat constant, reliable, backdrop of "world" to set my characters in without having to worry about whether or not I killed Statesman yesterday and what repercussions that will have tomorrow for some other toon or the whole game at large. I personally have no problem with the idea of seeing Posi giving a TF on the street under the statue while also seeing him show up as an NPC in missions etc.

If the NPC mobs I defeat while street sweeping can call in reinforcements, I would prefer that those reinforcements be NPCs as well. For one thing I'd rather not have to respond to such "calls for help" from defeated mobs as a PC myself, and for another a DEFINITELY don't want some jerk using it as an excuse to come gank me at random when I'm out street sweeping.

I would prefer we all just assume that all villains are sufficiently secretive in their villainy and can walk the streets with the rest of use as if they've done nothing wrong. Then if you want to have a PVP instance or event or something where those who enter the map or raid or whatever get flagged for PVP based on what their alignment or affiliation is, fine. One more way to divide the people into teams, I suppose. As long as it's contained, voluntary, and out of my hair as a PC trying to street sweep in peace, more power to you.

Actually, you know, if there were a way you could initiate a general call for "please come PVP me" by defeating some mobs or something, that would be okay with me as long as the person doing it had the choice to NOT do it. What I mean is, as a dedicated PVEer, I personally would shy away from such things as "street sweep until you get attacked by a PC, then PVP them" so I want the option of street sweeping with NO fear of that ever happening. Then, if people want to flag themselves for PVP and go aggro some mobs just to start a fight, fine. For what it's worth, I still don't think a lot of people will ever respond to such calls, because they will tend to come at bad times (you're in the middle of a mission, you're respeccing, you're in the SG base talking about setting up the raid for the weekend, etc). That said, you could put in badges for starting X number of calls for help or for responding to X number of them. I wouldn't tie any badges to defeats for that sort of thing, just provoking the NPCs to call out and for responding to such calls.

Edit: Of course one other problem with all of this is the asymmetry in factions/alignments. It's easy to assume that the player base will be divided into about 50% heroes and 50% villains but in CoX it was actually a LOT more heroes and a lot fewer villains if I recall correctly, so you have to take that into account.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Frankly, the only reason I

Frankly, the only reason I ever played Red-side was to gain access to the ATs/Powers. The only reason my Brute ever got to 50 was because friends kept saying 'come play Red-side with us'. The contacts were horrid people, mostly. The atmosphere was dirty and foul. There weren't many civilians to rescue and anyone you did rescue either ignored it, treated it as an obligation they were forced to repay, or they immediately turned around and attacked you!

Villains that get on the 'radio' and narrate their atrocities get the response they deserve.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
The concern over being able

The concern over being able to street sweep without fear of retaliation is in no small part the reason why I suggest that this only be an option when you're effectively taking out Arachnos soldiers in the middle of the Rogue Isles main island (whose name eludes me at the moment).

That said, I do understand the concern, even then. Especially if the PvEvP game involves competitive street sweeping to try to take down groups that don't belong to your favored faction(s).

I do think that the "well, civilians call 911 when gangs are going at it" analogy falls flat in a game about superheroics. The whole point of superheroes is that they respond. You don't see Superman witnessing a crime in progress and stepping into a phone booth to call the police. If a phone booth is involved, it's only so that Clark can change clothes before stopping the criminal himself.

It makes even less sense in the reverse; how often do mafiosos witnessing gangbangers attacking one of their hideouts sit back and call for backup? About as often as they feel they'd need the backup to stop it. So a supervillain is not likely to hide around the corner and call the local mafia to tell them their dudes are under attack by Hero McGoodguy; they're going to swoop in and sucker-punch McGoodguy while he's distracted by the non-super thugs.

Again, I do understand the concern. But if you're staying out of what are, for you, "PvP zones," it shouldn't be an issue because street sweeping isn't going to trigger a call for PC help. And if you ARE in them, you still can't be attacked unless you engage in actions which can trigger it, and warnings should by default be on. At least, as I'm picturing this working.

Business Manager

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
Let's recap, though, where we

Let's recap, though, where we are. So far, it sounds like we have agreement, at least, that PvP is probably at its most fun when it involves setting up some sort of evenly-matched event wherein everybody willfully went in for PvP. That doesn't sound unreasonable, and likely avoids most forms of griefing because there's no way to force it on anybody nor arrange for a mis-matched curbstomp. Is this, at least, something on which we all agree?

Business Manager

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 22 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

So far, it sounds like we have agreement, at least, that PvP is probably at its most fun when it involves setting up some sort of evenly-matched event wherein everybody willfully went in for PvP. That doesn't sound unreasonable, and likely avoids most forms of griefing because there's no way to force it on anybody nor arrange for a mis-matched curbstomp.

That pretty much sums it up. It all has to be "even steven" and above board so as to create a level playing field. And you know what happens then? People blame the disparities of their PvP performance on lag when they lose, because network latency is the one thing that the server host cannot control but which still has an influence over the outcome.

The best that MWM can do is provide an environment in which PvP is not about curbstomping. That ought to be "good enough" as opposed to being "perfect" ...


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
As a non-PVPer who has talked

As a non-PVPer who has talked at length to friends who have, in their gaming lives, ganked more than a few noobs in PVP zones of games (going back to MUDs of the 1990s) I can tell you that I personally would prefer organized events to that. Further, I think the competitive people I know would at least be happy about NOT having to wait for people to enter the PVP zone or lure them in somehow, and also, I can tell you that these people generally want glory, public recognition of their accomplishments, and some kind of tangible reward for winning (i.e. prizes of some kind). That is what motivates the competitive gamers I know to game competitively.

I think it's an ancillary benefit that you can have PVP sponsored events that don't require people to evenly divide themselves among different factions. Like, in a PVP event, you can literally have heroes and villains on one team fighting against heroes and villains on the other team as if nobody cares what anyone's alignment is. It's just "Team Us" versus "Team Them" or whatever, and those teams can be set up ahead of time by elected captains or whomever to be somewhat equal, or close to it. I personally don't get the entire phenomenon of videogame spectating, but people seem to do that for some reason, so that might happen too, and maybe that's a good thing.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 22 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Big Red Ball

Big Red Ball

If MWM can produce the Big Red Ball, you can play Super Soccer as a PvEvP competition and have the Team US vs Team THEM that Radiac is talking about.

Because in PvP (and in PvEvP) ... no one cares which "side" of the artificial divide of Hero vs Villain people fall on. All you're interested in is Player versus Player ... preferably as a competitive social event (like a tournament), rather than as a Good Guys vs Bad Guys enforced dichotomy where Players have to jump through hoops just to be on Team US or Team THEM.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
WarBird
WarBird's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/17/2013 - 19:11
Seems to me that CoH had an

Seems to me that CoH had an arena that was supposedly dedicated to "Hero on Hero Action!!" Don't remember where it was. It would make sense that there be some kind of "facility" for supers to test and train against others, and it's absurdly American to make an event and sell tickets for such an event. Wouldn't it make sense that these events would be scheduled and promoted? Give us a suitable venue and have regularly scheduled "Matches", then let us set up our own matches in-between. Heck, have multiple arenas of varying size and complexity inside the larger venue.

sev171
sev171's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/10/2015 - 14:33
I think you should focus on

I think you should focus on producing a good PVE game first before you create a PVP arenas and such. The reason is so that you can take your time developing a solid PVP game while we have something to play without PVP and PVE development interfering with each other as it has for many mmos and it shows. When the game lunches we can have the PVP instance and the ability to challenge other players to duels to tide us over. But I think it's important for any kind of competitive ranked PVP system that is fun and draws in players that the system takes almost as much time and focus as PVE and should have on some level different mechanics. It's a different type of game, if you try to use the exact same mechanics it will feel like it's broken or unfinished in some way. We've all seen it. Take the time to make a solid PVE game for release then start studying successful PVP centric games like LOL, Smash Bros, COD etc. Figure out what works in those games and what doesn't. Figure out how they reward players and how players are ranked. Figure out what mechanics make them fun and why people keep coming back. Use what you have learned and develop a hybrid system incorporating what works in those games and what would work in this game within that system. Don't stray too far from the mechanics of COT that it's unrecognizable, but it needs to be different enough from PVE and even enough that players will want to come back. All I ask is that you just take the time you need on both systems.

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
You're likely to get your

You're likely to get your wish, sev171, though I personally think it a backwards approach. PvP, designed at its simplest, is a lot less development than PvE, and is an excellent testing ground for getting the mechanical balance of the game nailed down. PvE development can happen while the simple arena-type game is in place for people to play with, while the gameplay department uses PvP to really see how their designs work. PvE foes can then be built to interact with the extant system.

But, like I said, the attention given has been more focused on a PvE game. So nobody needs to fear that the PvE game will suffer in favor of PvP playstyles. If that happens, it will be because PvP is developed poorly, not because PvE was neglected at PvP's expense. (It is, obviously, not our intent to develop ANYTHING poorly.)

Business Manager

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
To expand a bit on WHY I

To expand a bit on WHY I think it backwards, I would like to address something else sev171 said: that it should have different mechanics.

I fundamentally disagree. I actually think that is the key reason why PvP tends to feel so incomplete, so unbalanced, so wrong in most MMOs: the games were designed fundamentally to play PvE, to the point where powers were never balanced for use against PCs. Similarly, AI-controlled enemies' powers were designed to be used on PCs, with totally different scaling because the enemies are designed to lose "fair" fights more often than win, and are designed against PC defenses while PC attacks are designed against NPC defenses. All of which are fundamentally designed differently.

If you START by building the PvP game, you design the powers with a certain symmetry. Having developed a successful PvP experience, the same scaling and power dynamics can be used in designing NPCs and other AI-controlled enemies. They can be built to the scale that PCs exist on, and attack on the scale that PCs have defenses, just as they would normally. But now, the powers that PCs have are also on that scale, and thus the PvP game doesn't require fundamentally different mechanics.

Business Manager

sev171
sev171's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/10/2015 - 14:33
So basically designing PVP

So basically designing PVP combat first then designing the PVE around that? Cool idea. I hope it works.

But I still believe that PVP and PVE need to differ in some way at the very least to keep it balanced. Syncing everyone's level to top doesn't work because people that don't have some powers or builds yet are still disadvantaged. Maybe starting everyone's level off at 1 at the start of every match and level over the course of the match in some way as it progresses would be the way to go? That way there is a sense of progression through out the the match and giving both sides an even chance no matter the level.

Whatever you guys do, I'm glad to see you're taking your time to get things right and hope you don't let one style of gameplay limit the other. Thinking outside the box is key. Please don't get stuck inside a box :)

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 22 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Still think you're going to

Still think you're going to be stuck with a Friday Night Fights sort of boxing match type of PvP where everyone gets limited to Brawl Only at Level 1 with No Enhancements so as to achieve a level playing field for everyone. It makes the "price of entry" minimal and resists imbalances. It would also mean that Back Alley Brawler would be someone you still don't want to box with in the Finals ...


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
I don't get why you think we

I don't get why you think we'll be "stuck" with that. I understand the argument that it's the only way to make a "balanced" fight, but I don't quite think that level of balance uberalles is what we're aiming for in PvP. Am I missing something?

Business Manager

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

Let's recap, though, where we are. So far, it sounds like we have agreement, at least, that PvP is probably at its most fun when it involves setting up some sort of evenly-matched event wherein everybody willfully went in for PvP. That doesn't sound unreasonable, and likely avoids most forms of griefing because there's no way to force it on anybody nor arrange for a mis-matched curbstomp. Is this, at least, something on which we all agree?

Arenas, tournaments, instanced PvP zones, anything that draws a clear line between the two. Although, I don't think the blaring klaxon and flashing red emergency signals of CoH are strictly necessary. Just a simple text box with a distinct boundary and a message like:

"You are now entering a PvP zone and are subject to random attack by other players.
[Enter Zone] [Do Not Enter Zone]"

If the choose, [Enter Zone], one more brief check:

"Are you sure you want enter this PvP zone?

[Yes] [No]"

Ought to be good enough.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

To expand a bit on WHY I think it backwards, I would like to address something else sev171 said: that it should have different mechanics.
I fundamentally disagree. I actually think that is the key reason why PvP tends to feel so incomplete, so unbalanced, so wrong in most MMOs: the games were designed fundamentally to play PvE, to the point where powers were never balanced for use against PCs. Similarly, AI-controlled enemies' powers were designed to be used on PCs, with totally different scaling because the enemies are designed to lose "fair" fights more often than win, and are designed against PC defenses while PC attacks are designed against NPC defenses. All of which are fundamentally designed differently.
If you START by building the PvP game, you design the powers with a certain symmetry. Having developed a successful PvP experience, the same scaling and power dynamics can be used in designing NPCs and other AI-controlled enemies. They can be built to the scale that PCs exist on, and attack on the scale that PCs have defenses, just as they would normally. But now, the powers that PCs have are also on that scale, and thus the PvP game doesn't require fundamentally different mechanics.

It's been a few years, but as I recall, that approach did not work well for Fury, an Australian PvP game that got rave reviews right up until the day it went live. Nor did it work well for a group of Bulgarians who designed a perma-death PvP game with the intention of later adding on PvE (as I recall, that game was called "Legacy Online", no relation at all to the current web browser game called "Legacy"). There have been four or five others, but I can't remember the names, including one Italian game designed around the "wild west" (what is it with Italian producers and American cowboys, anyway?). That one was designed as a PvP game with an open world, no safe zones, internal ballistics calculator, and was supposed to incorporate many legendary figures such as Wild Bill Hickok and Wyatt Earp. I don't know if that one even made it into beta.

Nice theory, Segev, but in the handful of cases where I've seen it attempted it has failed every time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

I do think that the "well, civilians call 911 when gangs are going at it" analogy falls flat in a game about superheroics. The whole point of superheroes is that they respond. You don't see Superman witnessing a crime in progress and stepping into a phone booth to call the police. If a phone booth is involved, it's only so that Clark can change clothes before stopping the criminal himself.
It makes even less sense in the reverse; how often do mafiosos witnessing gangbangers attacking one of their hideouts sit back and call for backup? About as often as they feel they'd need the backup to stop it. So a supervillain is not likely to hide around the corner and call the local mafia to tell them their dudes are under attack by Hero McGoodguy; they're going to swoop in and sucker-punch McGoodguy while he's distracted by the non-super thugs.

Thats a dangerous stance to have. I know you said its just for PvP players, but I just fear once PvP players see this mechanic they will SCREAM for it to be part of the PvE areas (more like a ghost town, since what i understand the PvP channels map will look exactly the same since it might be reused, less work), and maybe Devs will one day Give IN to their CRIES. :<

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 22 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
I'm still waiting for

I'm still waiting for AlienMafia's Last Theorem for how PvP can be made perfectly fun for everyone.

/em popcorn

Meanwhile, I get to watch Segev flounder with essentially proving my point (and that of many others here) that PvE and PvP simply cannot be reconciled to each other without compromising both beyond enjoyability.

/em popcorn


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
sev171
sev171's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/10/2015 - 14:33
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

I don't get why you think we'll be "stuck" with that. I understand the argument that it's the only way to make a "balanced" fight, but I don't quite think that level of balance uberalles is what we're aiming for in PvP. Am I missing something?

I agree. I mean look at LOL and smash bros for example. You play as characters with very different skills but both games are very well balanced. There's a lot of opportunity to do the same here.

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 21 hours ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
OK, this thread is so TL;DR

OK, this thread is so TL;DR that I've forgotten parts of it already. Has anyone mentioned the concept of a "handicap" adjustment to PvP scoring?

Back in ancient days, I'd play this little game called Star Fleet Battles. (The rumor was that if you understood all the rules you'd be halfway to an engineering degree.) Most scenarios were balanced; e.g. a duel between two heavy cruisers (Enterprise vs. D7). Since scenarios were typically scored by a point system, normally you'd just total each player's points and the higher score wins. Each ship was worth a certain number of points; forcing an opponent's ship to disengage and leave the map scored you a small amount, crippling it and forcing it to leave scored you a larger percentage, destroying it scored you full credit, and boarding and capturing it scored you something like double or more.

There were several "unbalanced" scenarios where the two players had quite different force levels. Such as a Federation heavy cruiser which got jumped by three Klingon cruisers, or a Kzinti carrier that needed to recover all the fighters it could and get out before the superior force crushes them. In these cases, the point totals were modified in various ways, such as scoring a fixed number of points for achieving certain discrete goals, or applying a flat bonus to the disadvantaged side, or considering some units expendable so they didn't count toward the enemy's score.

Could something similar be applied to PvP for purposes of scoring? Because a lot of times the PvPers are being gankers to give them easy kills in a system that credits all kills equally. Maybe give them fractional credit for killing a target a short time after it leaves the safe area, or fractional credit if you're being supported by others, or whatever. And there could be special adjustments depending on the map or scenario. Has this been covered?

The other side of the coin from the gankers is that nobody wants to be an easy kill and thus kicked around constantly (and then figure they may as well leave). So easy kills should count for little (or sometimes nothing).

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Impulse King
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 18:55
There have been mentions of

There have been mentions of timers and reduced rewards for frequent victims, but nothing quite as extensive as your example as I recall. Hmm maybe handicapping could be it's own optional minigame in the arena? Weighting kill values by rep and relative PvP badges just for example? Sure it could be gamed but what would be the point if it had no effect on other matches?

And off topic I too used to play SFB. Ah good, good times!

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
Greyhawk wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:

It's been a few years, but as I recall, that approach did not work well for Fury, an Australian PvP game that got rave reviews right up until the day it went live. Nor did it work well for a group of Bulgarians who designed a perma-death PvP game with the intention of later adding on PvE (as I recall, that game was called "Legacy Online", no relation at all to the current web browser game called "Legacy"). There have been four or five others, but I can't remember the names, including one Italian game designed around the "wild west" (what is it with Italian producers and American cowboys, anyway?). That one was designed as a PvP game with an open world, no safe zones, internal ballistics calculator, and was supposed to incorporate many legendary figures such as Wild Bill Hickok and Wyatt Earp. I don't know if that one even made it into beta.
Nice theory, Segev, but in the handful of cases where I've seen it attempted it has failed every time.

Each of those you cite in your own description seem to contain seeds to their own destruction entirely unrelated to the principle I espoused. They were designed with perma-death, with "internal ballistics," and with other things that are also radical and new.

There is no evidence you present that the notion of balancing PvP had anything to do with their failure. I could just as easily cite every single MOBA out there as evidence that balancing PvP first works, but you would (rightly) point out that MOBAs are not MMOs. Likewise, those games are not what we're designing. They were PvP-FOCUSED and had particular design ideas that smell a lot more like causes of destruction and failure than do the notion that their balacing of PCs vs PCs was the problem.

Or can you honestly say that you think that, if they'd balanced their PvE first, they would have succeeded with all else being equal? If you can, please point to the causal link; I am interested in seeing it and, if it is persuasive, will acknowledge that this approach could be inherently flawed.

IzzyThats a dangerous stance to have. I know you said its just for PvP players, but I just fear once PvP players see this mechanic they will SCREAM for it to be part of the PvE areas (more like a ghost town, since what i understand the PvP channels map will look exactly the same since it might be reused, less work), and maybe Devs will one day Give IN to their CRIES. :&lt;[/quote wrote:

You're going to have to walk me through this one a bit more carefully. I am not sure what you're thinking I said, because your response doesn't make sense, to me, as a response to what you quoted me as writing. Can you please clarify?

[quote=RedlynneMeanwhile, I get to watch Segev flounder with essentially proving my point (and that of many others here) that PvE and PvP simply cannot be reconciled to each other without compromising both beyond enjoyability.

If you mean, "the goals of the two kinds of play are in conflict," you could be right. If you mean "the two cannot be designed to be balanced," then I question whether you're reading what I write or are just reading emotional responses to what I write.

PvP certainly engenders strong emotional responses. This is in no small part because of the nature of people to be jerks to each other when protected from consequences of those actions, and the fact that those who don't like PvP associate it primarily with being picked on and abused by griefers.

I am not saying they're wrong to make that association; almost two decades of experience with PvP in MMO-esq games shows us that this can be a serious problem.

My goal in this thread is mainly to see where the genuine problems are. "Involuntary PvP is a problem because it is" is not a helpful analysis. "PvP can't be balanced with PvE" is not only unhelpful, but likely false. "The desires of PvP players and PvE players cannot be met in the same game," on the other hand, could well be true. It is not, however, something which I am willing to accept based on emotional responses that amount to "because I say so and won't play a game which even attempts something other than strict segregation."

Some useful things have come out of this thread already. Other things are still, as you say, floundering around.

One interesting thing I learned is that the consensus of this thread's participants seems to be that "we ignored muggings of NPCs on NPCs once we got past a certain level, so why should we care if PC villains are mugging civilians in our chosen protectorates?" which feels like it'd utterly shatter the feel of a comic about heroics and superpowers, to me, but...well, video games are not comics, even when they strive to evoke the feel.

On the note of the thread's topic (rather than the metatopic that I may be taking too personally), what goals might exist in PvP other than "kill the target?" Maybe some form of "counting coup" which comes with tremendously diminishing returns the more somebody has had coup counted off of them without them getting any of their own would be desirable. Those who just don't care wouldn't bother, and would stop being worth bothering.

Alone, without removing the ABILITY to kill other PCs, this wouldn't stop griefers, so it's not sufficient, but perhaps if we can refocus the goal of PvP, we can find a way to minimize or remove the risk of death-by-PvP, and reduce the irritation factor of having it "done to you."

Of course, there's the fact that anything "done to you" could be annoying on the basis that you didn't want it done...but by that logic, having somebody message you is unacceptable. There's a line, SOMEWHERE, as to what's acceptable. I am not saying PvP in general isn't way over that line; it certainly is for some people. I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this, so to regroup: What might we shift the focus of PvP to, other than PC death, to begin our search for ways to mitigate the problems with PvP?

Business Manager

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

Of course, there's the fact that anything "done to you" could be annoying on the basis that you didn't want it done...but by that logic, having somebody message you is unacceptable. There's a line, SOMEWHERE, as to what's acceptable. I am not saying PvP in general isn't way over that line; it certainly is for some people. I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this, so to regroup: What might we shift the focus of PvP to, other than PC death, to begin our search for ways to mitigate the problems with PvP?

If you're looking for a line, I have one to suggest: Look at the time required for the player to restore the character to the same level of readiness as before whatever was done was done. Messages affect the player, not the character, and it is nearly impossible to quantify the effect. But an in-game attack on the character, even a single shot from a ranged tertiary power with the perp running away immediately thereafter, reduces how ready the character is for the tasks the player wanted to tackle next. Time is required to recover hit points, for debuffs to wear off, to work off whatever death penalties may be involved.

Decide how much of a player's time it is acceptable for another player to waste without permission, and there's where you draw the line.

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
.
Avatar courtesy of Satellite9 Irezoomie

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
That's actually a pretty good

That's actually a pretty good metric; thank you, Foradain.

The temptation is to set that at "none," but in truth, some amount of involuntary time-wasting HAS to be acceptable due to the fact that humans will interfere with each other, intentionally or not, if they are allowed to interact at all.

Doubtless, this needs to be set lower rather than higher. Clearly, few people (if any) really want it to be, "well, I died, so now I have to respawn, go back to where I was, and make up the lost XP/XP debt/lost IGC."

Business Manager

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Foradain wrote:
Foradain wrote:

Segev wrote:
Of course, there's the fact that anything "done to you" could be annoying on the basis that you didn't want it done...but by that logic, having somebody message you is unacceptable. There's a line, SOMEWHERE, as to what's acceptable. I am not saying PvP in general isn't way over that line; it certainly is for some people. I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this, so to regroup: What might we shift the focus of PvP to, other than PC death, to begin our search for ways to mitigate the problems with PvP?

If you're looking for a line, I have one to suggest: Look at the time required for the player to restore the character to the same level of readiness as before whatever was done was done. Messages affect the player, not the character, and it is nearly impossible to quantify the effect. But an in-game attack on the character, even a single shot from a ranged tertiary power with the perp running away immediately thereafter, reduces how ready the character is for the tasks the player wanted to tackle next. Time is required to recover hit points, for debuffs to wear off, to work off whatever death penalties may be involved.
Decide how much of a player's time it is acceptable for another player to waste without permission, and there's where you draw the line.

Which is why, to an extent, games that have lower downtimes between combats (which seem to be more action orientated to a degree) seem to be a bit more PvP balanced.

CoX sucked for that, because you had a *limited* resource, and even then the "rest" ability took forever to recharge and your health/endurance was about 2-3 minutes to get from 0 to full.

Now 2-3 minutes might seem like a long time, and I will agree with that. HOWEVER, if you make the game have multiple methods of recovery (maybe not as extreme as the SWTOR recovery ability, where after every pull you spent 15 seconds recovering), but it helped cut down the downtime.

Then there is also the travel times to get back to WHERE you were. That is something that is harder to balance out. Especially when you take into consideration PvE deaths and how long you have to sometimes crawl back to get back to where you were.

Even CoX was not immune from this.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

That's actually a pretty good metric; thank you, Foradain.
The temptation is to set that at "none," but in truth, some amount of involuntary time-wasting HAS to be acceptable due to the fact that humans will interfere with each other, intentionally or not, if they are allowed to interact at all.
Doubtless, this needs to be set lower rather than higher. Clearly, few people (if any) really want it to be, "well, I died, so now I have to respawn, go back to where I was, and make up the lost XP/XP debt/lost IGC."

Regarding your concerns about unintentional time-wasting: I recommend not going for a universal solution, instead fix what you can. Most of the interactions in an MMO can be divided into three categories: Combat, Social, and Movement.

Combat would obviously include any combat power intended to be used on an enemy. If there are any "teleport friend" powers, I'd include these if used fraudulently, but that would be more a matter for taking action after the fact, as if they are useable at all on friends there will be a potential for misuse.

Under Social, I'd include all chat channels and trade windows. But like the "Teleport Friend", I see no way to prevent misuse before the fact. Ignore buttons should help a lot afterwards.

Movement is only a factor in games where the physics prohibit characters walking through each over. Consideration of where it is appropriate to allow pushing and where it is not is the best I can suggest there.

So the only time wasters I can see that are controllable before the fact would be the combat powers intended for use on enemies. And all we need to cut that down to zero is to have no forced PvP combat. Voluntary flagging, warning before actions that would flag you, and rules for when you can unflag and what the consequences are.

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
.
Avatar courtesy of Satellite9 Irezoomie

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
There is one thing that we

There is one thing that we may have overlooked a bit.
Since this game is going to have an offline mode available,
I will have the ability to avoid all PVP and all social interaction entirely.
So how closely will the online and offline games be linked?
If I have to pass through an area known to be a haven for griefers,
will it be possible to log off, travel to my destination and log back on?

Here's another Idea, that I like even better:

I played the game for over a year before I could bring myself to walk past a mugging without stopping to save the poor npc.
I wasn't doing it for xp or even role playing really.
Not helping just felt wrong. It's not who I am.
What finally got me to stop was when a friend told me I was making it harder for the low level characters to get xp by doing stuff they were supposed to do, and inadvertently keeping them from doing it.
I still felt bad and did it when no one else was around,
but it got easier over time. Eventually I decided that grey people are allowed to rape and kill anyone they want.
I wished that grey opponents were just invisible to me.
That would've made me feel a lot better.

You could also have it work both ways so really high level opponents are invisible to you also.
then all anyone would ever see is level appropriate material.

Now we've already made it clear that this won't solve all of the problems
because outnumbered is the biggest problem
but it will help us to have all the characters hanging out in the same zone.

sev171
sev171's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/10/2015 - 14:33
https://www.youtube.com/watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKGDealc3eE&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5DQQY0DpnvthP15AsO-NWuj&index=11 something to think about when designing arena pvp I think. Could bring in a huge player base for pvp this way. More players = more opportunities to play = more fun ^_^

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 21 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
A couple of important things

A couple of important things to note: the intent of off-line availability of the game is not a single player campaign version of the game world or even a part of it.
It stems from a promise that if something were to happen to the game proper there would be a way to make it possible to continue playing.
This also might (seriously stressing might) allow for players to set up their own mods / versions of the game and even provide their own server access to said modded game even when the game is live.

Either way there could require or will require work required of the user to create their version of the game for a number of reasons. Off-line versions is a hopeful intent but there are plenty of issues to navigate to make it wholly and immediately possible and retain security for the game proper (both legally and technically).

There are issues surrounding phasing out content by levels and having a multitude of individual player phases. Enough so that it is probably not worth the time nor wall of text required to properly explain the why's and how's. If it were even a considered possibility in terms of resources we could literally create an on-line single player experience, immediate co-op with desired friends, write and create level-based content throughout the entire city, and more. It is not a simple matter to just phase out content by level, much in the same way suggestions to phase instances of "i don't want to see that other thing" were turned down (meaning sudden phased pvp, various events in an area, other players and so on) via simple selecting options of "let me see, i don't want to see X".


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
(No subject)
sev171
sev171's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/10/2015 - 14:33
https://www.youtube.com/watch
Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

The trouble with that, Fireheart, is the converse.
Villain McBadguy goes into the good and virtuous heart of all that is right in the city, and starts terrorizing civilians. He has "No PvP" set, and so cannot be targetted. He spams any and all chat channels he can with braggadocio about how mighty he is, how powerless the heroes are to stop him, and goes out of his way to terrorize "good" NPCs in front of players of heroes who are now forced to stand around and watch or blatantly ignore this highly villainous behavior right in front of them, all because they truly are rendered powerless against him by his "no PvP" flag.
The correct way, to my mind, to think about how your Hero McGoodguy should be cleaning up thugs is to stay in areas where they don't get to flag for a mission for villains to come help them.
I'd also suggest that the flagging might be seen as a timer: you have until a villain accepts the mission and gets to you to finish off these thugs without having to either engage in PvP or flee. Would you have a similar problem if the thugs could instead start a timer whereby, if you haven't gotten them all by the time it's out, they escape?

And there you hit the 'Marian's Tailor's dilemma'

It is NOT the responsibility of a player to deal with the griefing of another player. It can not be unless the game is all about open world PvP. In all other cases it is the responsibility of the Life Game Staff, and only of them.

Your examples still amount to forcing players into either accepting or risking PvP, for no apparent reason that a non-PvP player can discern. And frankly, at this point you come across at grasping for reasons to justify semi-open world PvP in a game.

I can't think of any game that succesfully managed to pull that off. Games naturally drift, if they don't already start out that way, into being either entirely about PvP and designed specifically for that, or they have a complete separation between PvE and PvP with no possible overlap. Relatively modern MMOs like Secret World has no possible PvP in the game proper and only allow it in special arenas that you have to sign up for. SW:TOR sort of mucks it up by having almost no interaction betwen the two factions except for some zones on some planets. Everything else is guarded with instakill drones that are there specfically to prevent griefing. And then because there is almost no open world PvP the developers threw in missions in zones that autoflag you for PvP and shared dungeon zones where a careless AoE attack can autoflag you for PvP (and then the flag tends to spread like a virus because you can not group with a PvP flagged player without quickly getting flagged yourself as soon as you take a beneficial action for that player). There's a lot of complaint about that and it soured a lot of the original players to the game. It didn't help either that the top end gear of any tier could only be obtained from PvP rewards.

At the end of the day PvP is an entirely different type, and style, of game and I really can not see how it can be mixed up with a PvE game without either, or both, suffering from the attempt.

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

First, the only way I can think of for a PC to give anyone grief while hiding behind a "I'm not flagged from PVP so you can't touch me" shield would be kill stealing. That and just being annoying in chat I guess. I don't think anyone is RPing so hardcore that they'd get upset that a villain is mugging passer-by and not allowing PVP heroes to thwart them. I think you just ignore that guy, if he's only picking on NPC mobs of innocent civilians, callous as that sounds. I mean we all ignored the Atlas Park purse snatchers by the time we were level 15, this is no different. If the griefer isn't directly messing with ME, I can pretty much ignore them can't I? Kill stealing is the main problem there and flagging the kill stealer for PVP is probably not the answer to that anyway.

This is the reason why the PvP/PvE immunity flag -must- extend to the mobs a player is fighting (or interacting with). I.e. any mob starts out in neutral state but as soon as a player interacts with it it gains that players flag and becomes immune to the opposite flag (and yes, buffing of unengaged or friendly NPCs should be impossible to prevent griefing).

NPCs that should remain in the game no matter what (e.g. shopkeepers or mission givers) must be flagged as immune to damage, not be attempted to make that way by making them autoflagging for PvP. (There is an old design rule that propbably is not much know anymore called 'once is always' dealing with situations like that. If an NPC or mob can be hit, no matter how rarely, then players will find a way to make themselves effectively being able to hit them always. Even if it takes twohundred players ganging up on that NPC.)

In general it is good design practice to achieve certain designed situations as directly as possible and not try to rely on rarity, or obscurity or subtle negative reinforcement psychology. Players will work around the first, look on the internet to solutions to the second and shrug off the third.
(e.g. Coh's police bots were invulnerable and did not retaliate against players that accidentally hit them. Their only purpose was to prevent mobs from entering certain areas or buildings. While a bit weak on the immersion side of things, that is robust game design.)

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Segev wrote:
The trouble with that, Fireheart, is the converse.

I don't completely disagree with that. I have played DCUO and had villains rush in and 'corrupt' the civilians I'm trying to rescue. It Did make me mad and I Did want to 'do something about it', and the game didn't give me that option.
-Not Unless I Was Willing To Make An Ass Of Myself By Challenging/Taunting The Villain-
One reason why it worked that way is that the Police in the scenario were 'overwhelmed' by the presence of NPC baddies, so there were not enough of them to challenge the Villain. My mission was to defeat the baddies and rescue the civilians - as a hero. Later, on my reluctant villain character, I got the Other mission, to defeat Police, defend baddies, and use corrupting drugs on civilians. It was a stalemate situation where only the PCs could make effective progress. Neither the police nor the baddies Would effectively assist the PCs, though they could be an annoying threat, if aggroed.
For me, the worst part was that I Could Not Heal, Protect, or Defend my rescued civilians from the Villains. I beat off the baddies, haul the citizen out of a burning car, and I'm convincing them to calm down and make their way to safety, when the Dastard zips in, tags them with the toxic needle, and runs off. And then my rescuee goes berserk and I have to beat them too! And I get no credit for the save.
Instancing would be a valid solution to the conflict, but might be seen as segregation. Being able to summon more NPC backup, to deal with the opposition PC could work, but might be seen as griefing. PCs with 'Support' powers might be able to shield, heal, and even 'damage aura' NPCs... might be griefing, again.
Your 'Villain McBadguy' would attract the attention of not only PC heroes, but NPC heroes and police units, if he's street-sweeping. Otherwise, Villain McBadguy and his Heinous Crew are in an instanced mission where they can't offend other players... directly.
Of course, then there's the other perfectly valid solution - Civilians can be immune to PC effects.
Be Well!
Fireheart

This is not an argument -for- PvP so much as an example of terrible game design.

The game allowed, and even encouraged, griefing other players.
There is a reason I quite DCUO after less than an afternoon. That game stands as an example of some of the worst kinds of design decisions you can make with a game that has opposing factions in the same zones.

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

To expand a bit on WHY I think it backwards, I would like to address something else sev171 said: that it should have different mechanics.
I fundamentally disagree. I actually think that is the key reason why PvP tends to feel so incomplete, so unbalanced, so wrong in most MMOs: the games were designed fundamentally to play PvE, to the point where powers were never balanced for use against PCs. Similarly, AI-controlled enemies' powers were designed to be used on PCs, with totally different scaling because the enemies are designed to lose "fair" fights more often than win, and are designed against PC defenses while PC attacks are designed against NPC defenses. All of which are fundamentally designed differently.
If you START by building the PvP game, you design the powers with a certain symmetry. Having developed a successful PvP experience, the same scaling and power dynamics can be used in designing NPCs and other AI-controlled enemies. They can be built to the scale that PCs exist on, and attack on the scale that PCs have defenses, just as they would normally. But now, the powers that PCs have are also on that scale, and thus the PvP game doesn't require fundamentally different mechanics.

Sadly, if you design archetypes and powers, and your entire game, with PvP in mind first and last, then you inevitably end up with extremely bland archetypes and powersets.

In PvP DPS (and speed) is king, always. Tanks can do marginally acceptable because their 'extra' power is passive (but also useless against other players). Healers and Buffers don't do at all well in PvP environments because their powers are active and using them takes away from defeating the enemy. At best you can hope for a stalemate where the DPS is matched by the HPS and one side can not defeat the other while the other isn't even fighting back because all they do is healing themselves.
This leads to a game design with effectively 3 classes: DPS, DPS with a tanky feel to it and DPS with a debuffy feel to it. DPS curves for all classes needs to be pretty similar too or you instantly end up with one class being demonstrably superior or inferior. Classes, archetypes and powers that rely on limited NPC AI are entirely useless in PvP (because the player is never so stupid to ignore the actual threat). There is a reason why even CoH, which had pretty dysfunctional PvP, ended up with all active PvP characters being rather similar in their choices of archetypes and (aux) powers. Pet classes, controllers, healers, low DPS tanks all tend to do rather poorly in PvP. Front loaded DPS classes either don't work (can't get a clear shot for their front loaded damage), or they get nerfed into oblivion because nobody likes to be one-hit killed. Never mind the really creative classes and archetypes that translate even more poorly to PvP.

(p.s. there are designs that try to 'subtly' encourage players to pay attention to tanks and controllers in their intended roles, but most of the time it is smarter to suck up the penalty and turn battles into a 3 on 1 fight anyway. A low DPS tank is a nuisance that for a short while can be ignored. A high DPS tank is a tank-mage and everybody will be playing one anyway).

sev171
sev171's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/10/2015 - 14:33
Nadira wrote:
Nadira wrote:

Segev wrote:
To expand a bit on WHY I think it backwards, I would like to address something else sev171 said: that it should have different mechanics.
I fundamentally disagree. I actually think that is the key reason why PvP tends to feel so incomplete, so unbalanced, so wrong in most MMOs: the games were designed fundamentally to play PvE, to the point where powers were never balanced for use against PCs. Similarly, AI-controlled enemies' powers were designed to be used on PCs, with totally different scaling because the enemies are designed to lose "fair" fights more often than win, and are designed against PC defenses while PC attacks are designed against NPC defenses. All of which are fundamentally designed differently.
If you START by building the PvP game, you design the powers with a certain symmetry. Having developed a successful PvP experience, the same scaling and power dynamics can be used in designing NPCs and other AI-controlled enemies. They can be built to the scale that PCs exist on, and attack on the scale that PCs have defenses, just as they would normally. But now, the powers that PCs have are also on that scale, and thus the PvP game doesn't require fundamentally different mechanics.

Sadly, if you design archetypes and powers, and your entire game, with PvP in mind first and last, then you inevitably end up with extremely bland archetypes and powersets.
In PvP DPS (and speed) is king, always. Tanks can do marginally acceptable because their 'extra' power is passive (but also useless against other players). Healers and Buffers don't do at all well in PvP environments because their powers are active and using them takes away from defeating the enemy. At best you can hope for a stalemate where the DPS is matched by the HPS and one side can not defeat the other while the other isn't even fighting back because all they do is healing themselves.
This leads to a game design with effectively 3 classes: DPS, DPS with a tanky feel to it and DPS with a debuffy feel to it. DPS curves for all classes needs to be pretty similar too or you instantly end up with one class being demonstrably superior or inferior. Classes, archetypes and powers that rely on limited NPC AI are entirely useless in PvP (because the player is never so stupid to ignore the actual threat). There is a reason why even CoH, which had pretty dysfunctional PvP, ended up with all active PvP characters being rather similar in their choices of archetypes and (aux) powers. Pet classes, controllers, healers, low DPS tanks all tend to do rather poorly in PvP. Front loaded DPS classes either don't work (can't get a clear shot for their front loaded damage), or they get nerfed into oblivion because nobody likes to be one-hit killed. Never mind the really creative classes and archetypes that translate even more poorly to PvP.
(p.s. there are designs that try to 'subtly' encourage players to pay attention to tanks and controllers in their intended roles, but most of the time it is smarter to suck up the penalty and turn battles into a 3 on 1 fight anyway. A low DPS tank is a nuisance that for a short while can be ignored. A high DPS tank is a tank-mage and everybody will be playing one anyway).

I disagree. If the system is built right, every player on the team has a role and each archetype excels at one of those rolls. Each archetype should be unbalanced enough that, although these rolls exist players can use specific archetypes in order to match their style of going about this role.

Look at league of legends as an example of this. There are a huge number of champions, each unique and they are all unbalanced in some way. Players that tank with Nasus ( low dps tank) and plaers that play with Garren (high dps tank) play the same roll, but the play styles are very different. Is either champion better? That depends on who's playing. The same can be said about all champions in that game. The game is designed around this system and because of this, each champion you play as or against is a completely different experience. If a new champ comes in and is good at one thing, players eventually find ways to counter it and the seemingly op champ is balanced out on it's own.

I believe that this can be done with the power sets in this game and balancing for PVP first is a really interesting idea.

whiteperegrine
whiteperegrine's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 06/19/2014 - 14:49
I am in line with Greyhawk

I am in line with Greyhawk for the most part.

pvp and pve do not mix....why is this so hard to understand? the fundamental drive behind the players for pvp and pve are at odds with one another. attempts to mix the two will not results in the goodness that is reeses peanut butter cups...but more likely a steaming pile of poo where one side will eventually just completely walk away from the game.

there really needs to be the basic decision made...is CoT going to be a PVP game or will it be a PVE game. while it can have both it will have to have one of them at its base design core. ...and for the record, it would be nice to know what this decision is from a dev so we know what to expect.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 21 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Just so it is clear, the game

Just so it is clear, the game will have pve and pvp. PvP will exist in what we hope to be many forms. Arena style games, races, duels, matches, marketeering, open world, objective based, and perhaps within the world phase of pvp some results driven pvevp.

It was stated from the very beginning within our kickstater that PvP will always be optional. For that to be true it applies in whatever form it takes. Which means it is never forced upon or thrust over or around pve.

Now the powers design team has taken its time and has gone through multiple iterations of combat mechanics to make the underlying system as agnostic as possible with regards to pve and pvp. Part of this design was driven by the intent to reduce the learning curve from pve to pvp as much as possible. As often as possible powers should have the same behaviors in noth types of play. Sometimes a change may be necessary because pvp highliights an issue of power behavior that exists in pve but wasn't as apparent and the same may occur from pve to pvp. The intent is that it will be rare, if ever, to have a power to have radically different behavior between the two.

Just as there will be variance in performance in different types of pve playstyles between classifications, so to will pvp performance vary between classifications. It is inevitable and unadvoidable given the nature of the classification design. The same will apply in build performance within each class between pve and pvp. It is unadvoidable due to the nature of the differences between the two styles of play. Just as certain classes will solo better than others in pve, certain classes will be better in. 1v1 pvp. Just as team make up will have a large variety of successful performance in pve the same will apply in pvp.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Just so it is clear, the game will have pve and pvp. PvP will exist in what we hope to be many forms. Arena style games, races, duels, matches, marketeering, open world, objective based, and perhaps within the world phase of pvp some results driven pvevp.
It was stated from the very beginning within our kickstater that PvP will always be optional. For that to be true it applies in whatever form it takes. Which means it is never forced upon or thrust over or around pve.
Now the powers design team has taken its time and has gone through multiple iterations of combat mechanics to make the underlying system as agnostic as possible with regards to pve and pvp. Part of this design was driven by the intent to reduce the learning curve from pve to pvp as much as possible. As often as possible powers should have the same behaviors in noth types of play. Sometimes a change may be necessary because pvp highliights an issue of power behavior that exists in pve but wasn't as apparent and the same may occur from pve to pvp. The intent is that it will be rare, if ever, to have a power to have radically different behavior between the two.
Just as there will be variance in performance in different types of pve playstyles between classifications, so to will pvp performance vary between classifications. It is inevitable and unadvoidable given the nature of the classification design. The same will apply in build performance within each class between pve and pvp. It is unadvoidable due to the nature of the differences between the two styles of play. Just as certain classes will solo better than others in pve, certain classes will be better in. 1v1 pvp. Just as team make up will have a large variety of successful performance in pve the same will apply in pvp.

I find this to be an admirable goal and a good basic strategy. Where I object is the suggestion that PvE powers might be made less effective, due to PvP issues.

Granted, if this balancing is done Before the game is released, players may not realize there is/was a change in performance. The danger is that, post release tweaking will reveal the gap.

A possibility would be to build NPCs using the same 'rig' of Class/Spec/Tert that PCs use and therefore the same 'powers', then balance those powers such that the AI doesn't just rampage all over the Players. Presumably, at that point, the powers would be balanced for PvP as well.

Of course, a problem with that is that PvP Players will continue to 'Learn Killer Move, Practice Killer Move, Apply Killer Move, Profit!' in exploitative fashion, until it gets nerfed. Then rinse and repeat with the next 'Killer Move'. Because that is how PvP Players operate. They Will 'break' the game over and over, in ways that the Devs cannot anticipate ahead of time.

This is another reason to keep PvP and PvE in separate areas.

So, I understand the clear vision and goal for how PvE and PvP will work together, but I do not find the Communities of PvP and PvE players to be compatible. They have different goals and I do not see a way to harmonize them, so that they can play nice together. You may be better off accepting the separation.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 21 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

I find this to be an admirable goal and a good basic strategy. Where I object is the suggestion that PvE powers might be made less effective, due to PvP issues.
Granted, if this balancing is done Before the game is released, players may not realize there is/was a change in performance. The danger is that, post release tweaking will reveal the gap.
A possibility would be to build NPCs using the same 'rig' of Class/Spec/Tert that PCs use and therefore the same 'powers', then balance those powers such that the AI doesn't just rampage all over the Players. Presumably, at that point, the powers would be balanced for PvP as well.
Of course, a problem with that is that PvP Players will continue to 'Learn Killer Move, Practice Killer Move, Apply Killer Move, Profit!' in exploitative fashion, until it gets nerfed. Then rinse and repeat with the next 'Killer Move'. Because that is how PvP Players operate. They Will 'break' the game over and over, in ways that the Devs cannot anticipate ahead of time.
This is another reason to keep PvP and PvE in separate areas.
So, I understand the clear vision and goal for how PvE and PvP will work together, but I do not find the Communities of PvP and PvE players to be compatible. They have different goals and I do not see a way to harmonize them, so that they can play nice together. You may be better off accepting the separation.
Be Well!
Fireheart

What I was referring to when sometimes pvp highlights unexpected results in pve and vice versa is as mentioned, players end up breaking the game in ways devs never meant to be possible. It just doesn't happen in pvp but pve as well, and sometimes those 'broken ways' can be used in either environment to do things that could be potentially harmful for either environment.

Sometimes those 'broken ways' are happy accidents too and they stand. Sometimes not and the dreaded 'nero' happens. When the pvp 'breaking behavior' can be used negatively in pve and it results in a change to certain powers or even content design, pve players lay blame to either pvp or poor dev design, and the same occurs when pve actions can be used in unexpected ways in pvp and result in changes.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this...

This, then, is the true core of the issue. First we must clearly define our goals. Without goals, we are drifting through fog and quite possibly headed straight for a hidden reef.

Segev wrote:

... so to regroup: What might we shift the focus of PvP to, other than PC death, to begin our search for ways to mitigate the problems with PvP?

I must contend, as always, that this is simply impossible. People are people and their emotions are very real things. Whether designing a game or a four-masted sailing ship, those emotions must be taken into consideration or the design will fail. Despite the dreams of engineers and mathematicians, the real world is neither pure nor simple. It is a very messy place, that is how we know it's real.

Of the games I listed earlier, two are particularly important: the Bulgarian Legacy Online and the Italian Western.

In both of those cases, if they had simply focused on getting the core combat mechanics right and then linking those mechanics to the proper animations they could have finished their games well enough to get a solid beta underway, collected metadata on how the mechanics affected player emotions, and then finished their games. But instead of doing this, they obsessed over creating perfect PvP balance between disparate combat styles and wound up unable to finish anything. Unfortunately, there is simply no way in a binary-driven computer system with seed-driven RNG simulation of "chance" to create disparate matrices that interact in perfect harmony.

Or, to put it more simply, it does not matter how you run the numbers, a low-powered repeating firearm will out perform a high-powered bow and arrow in one-on-one combat encounters every single time (assuming both combatants are masters of their chosen skill). This will always leave the bow and arrow user defeated and depressed because after enough repetition, even the most emotionally mature person will feel the pain of defeat.

If I play a thousand games of chess against Bobby Fisher there is a statistical probability that I will win at least one encounter. That one win will not compensate me emotionally for the 999 defeats, nor will Bobby Fisher come away from those thousand games feeling anything beyond boredom.

Emotions are very real things and this is why PvP and PvE players cannot co-exist in the same sandbox. There is no way to "mitigate" the results of repeated defeats, nor is there any way to mitigate the boredom that comes from repeated success. I don't PvP any more because I got tired of winning. It became completely pointless. If I built a character for PvP that character would win every encounter against characters designed for PvE, and would win at least half the encounters against characters designed for PvP (and usually 3 out of 4 because most people are not trained to think tactically).

It was boring.

After several thousand encounters most PvP players (but not all of them, of course) will wind up either bored or depressed depending on how well they perform overall.

Emotions are real, both positive ones and negative ones. Discounting them is simply bad design.

I'm sorry, Segev, but your inability to accept this reality does not change the nature of that reality.

Square pegs, round holes, and so on.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 22 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Greyhawk wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:

I'm sorry, Segev, but your inability to accept this reality does not change the nature of that reality.
Square pegs, round holes, and so on.

Funny ... I believe I said that (at least once or twice). Perhaps it's a good thing that Greyhawk is reiterating this point. It seems to have not (yet?) been received.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Personally I don't think it's

Personally I don't think it's a good idea to try to make PVP more palatable to the non-PVP-enthusiasts in the first place. I'm a non-PVP-enthusiast and I don't want to PVP because I get nothing out of it. Hypothetically, even if I had a good PVP toon and was good at PVP combat to the point where I could legitimately win fairly often, I'm still not interested doing PVP in the first place because I don't like or desire the kind of rewards PVP gives. The smug self-important satisfaction of "proving to everyone that I'm the best" does not hold any great place in my heart, nor do I get any satisfaction or joy out of defeating other human players. I'm not trying to take someone else's fun away. Frankly, I'm not interested in trying to prove anything to a bunch of internet idiots I never even met and I don't really care what their opinion of my PVP skill is. I would much rather interact with other players in a positive sense by organizing and running group activities where we all get something in the end, like raids etc.

I play my toons to get levels, gear, badges, costume pieces, garner clout with factions, etc. I enjoy playing with others when I can play cooperatively with them. That's what I like to do, that's why I liked playing CoX. Trying to tailor PVP to me would be like trying to make a steak more palatable to a vegan. Pointless to even attempt, and probably damaging if not catastrophic in the effect it would have on the product itself.

As for making PVP more enjoyable for the PVPers, you'd have to ask them what they want, but I feel that making the game more twitchy would be a big part of what they would want (correct me if I'm wrong). "I want to dominate due to superior skill and reflexes, not by having the best gear" they might say. Make the game a meritocracy ruled by the best PLAYERS not the best gear or the right powersets, or fastest connection speeds, etc..

For the record I'm against twitch based mechanics, so if you don't want to ruin the PVE of the game by adding that in, you'll avoid those altogether. That said, you basically can't please the PVE and PVP crowds at the same time. The best you'll get is a compromise, and I would hope that that compromise is skewed in favor of the PVE set more so than the other way.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
I think you do a disservice

I think you do a disservice to PvP players when you attribute self-aggrandizement at the expense of others and "ruining others' fun" to them as their primary motivations. Certainly, griefers are out to achieve these things, but competitive play doesn't have an inherent disrespect for nor need to denigrate your opponents. That there are people who behave that way doesn't make it the most common motivation; merely the most noticeable due to the volume with which those who do play that way shout.

Business Manager

WarBird
WarBird's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/17/2013 - 19:11
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

I think you do a disservice to PvP players when you attribute self-aggrandizement at the expense of others and "ruining others' fun" to them as their primary motivations. Certainly, griefers are out to achieve these things, but competitive play doesn't have an inherent disrespect for nor need to denigrate your opponents. That there are people who behave that way doesn't make it the most common motivation; merely the most noticeable due to the volume with which those who do play that way shout.

Perception is reality. Even if ninety-nine out of one hundred PVP players werepolite and sportsman-like,they would be undone by the one jerk every time. CoX was primarily a PVE game. The player-base you're talking to has an overwhelmingly PVE preference. Please don't foist PVP on your player base with the thin justification that "Not all PVP players are jerks."

Every single time I have been drawn into a PVP situation in any game I have been struck by the selfishness and lack of maturity of the players. Every. Single. Time. Certainly not by their courtesy and sense of fair play. So you can't play the "profiling" card. The perception exists and PERsists because it is real.

You promised us that no one will be forced to do PVP. I'm trusting that will be the case and that's enough for me. I may dip my toe in that pool, just to see how you've worked out the mechanics. But I have every expectation that it will populated by the same gankers and tea-baggers I've come to expect everywhere else.

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
I started this thread with

I started this thread with the hope that some solutions could be found. I've seen a few Ideas that could help but I'm not sure if the devs are planning to use any of them. since they've all been countered by horrible ideas.
I of course started with the premise that no one will be forced into PVP, but I've been blindsided by the revelation that heroes & villains will be in the same zone, and that pve and pvp will be in the same zone.
I'm not at all happy with what I've seen and I can't help but wonder what the hell you'r thinking with that.

I've seen nothing encouraging.
The only solution I have is to close my chat window, and auto refuse all challenges.
but now I also have to watch for actions that might flag me for pvp and avoid them like the plague.
I can't patrol the streets, just do missions.
anything that happens on the streets has to be ignored.
That's pretty sad since patrolling the streets was one of my favorite activities in COH.
For a long time I just couldn't do missions
because I'd get disconnected every time I tried to enter a mission.
I really liked patrolling the streets.
Now it looks like I that's off limits in this game
or at least has to be done with extreme caution making sure to never attack another player or his minions.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 22 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

I think you do a disservice to PvP players when you attribute self-aggrandizement at the expense of others and "ruining others' fun" to them as their primary motivations.

Primary motivation? That's probably taking it too far.

CONSISTENT motivation for a significant segment of the PvP population? Undeniable.

This is one of those things where a PERSON is smart, but PEOPLE are stupid (thank you Men In Black).


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
All I can tell you is, the

All I can tell you is, the PVP players I know are competitive people who are driven by a desire to achieve victory against another person through superior skill, preparation for the expected metagame, and just-this-side-of-legal skullduggery. The people I'm talking about might never troll anyone or act like jerks on chat, but in their own minds, a little part of their psyche is embarrassed, ashamed, and mortified when they lose at anything. The thought of losing makes their skin crawl. The people I know with that attitude tend to assume everyone else hates losing as much as they do. As such, they know (or assume they know) what effect they're having on the opponent when they beat them (i.e. that they've just embarrassed the other person publicly and caused them to feel the shame of losing). The competitive people I know actually ENJOY doing that to each other. It's like the BEST part of winning is that you made someone else LOSE, so now I the winner am able to revel in my victory and enjoy the glory and the spoils of victory (i.e. tournament prizes, etc) and you the loser can SUCK IT because you LOST. YOU LOST and _I_ WON, and those are the facts. It's as basic as rams butting heads to get to mate with females. It's the age-old "thrill of victory / agony of defeat" thing. On a very basic psychological level this is what makes players like me (PVE cooperative care bears) inherently and fundamentally different from PVP enthusiasts, in terms of what we're trying to get out of playing a computer game.

So as I said, no matter what you do to try to make the PVP more balanced for the classes or less unfun for those of us who get killed a lot, I for one am just not interested in doing PVP in the first place because there is no levelup or gear or badge or costume piece or faction loyalty perk at the end of the tunnel for me in that. And in a game where PVP is totally optional, since I'm NOT one of those competitive people who likes PVP for the reasons I've gone into above, I'd do other (PVE-type) stuff to get those rewards were that an option, as I assume it will be.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 21 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

I of course started with the premise that no one will be forced into PVP, but I've been blindsided by the revelation that heroes & villains will be in the same zone, and that pve and pvp will be in the same zone.

TMP your premis of no one being forced to PvP is correct. If you read what ai've said a couple of posts back, I attempted to address someone else's similar concern. Pvp will not be occuring in or around pve unless that is you are in the pvp phase of the map. Pve players will have their play ground, pvp players will have their play ground.

We jope to provide some non-combative pvp games like sporting events, races (like the winter games from cityof) and such, but again these will have their own location and not be a requirement for anything ouer than the nature of the pvp themed event those pvp-like games are designed for.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Radiac

Radiac
I think you might've hit the nail on the head.
Since I can enjoy my victory just fine without having to beat another player
and in fact that kind of diminishes the fun for me
There is no reward to PVP that isn't a lot easier to get in PVE
Why bother?
Why face greater challenges for smaller rewards?
there isn't any incentive.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Radiac
I think you might've hit the nail on the head.
Since I can enjoy my victory just fine without having to beat another player
and in fact that kind of diminishes the fun for me
There is no reward to PVP that isn't a lot easier to get in PVE
Why bother?
Why face greater challenges for smaller rewards?
there isn't any incentive.

I will reiterate, for me it's not even a question of whether or not the PVP content is any harder than the PVE stuff. I'm just not playing MMOs with the intended purpose of beating someone else. I'm not interested in making someone else lose. If anything, that, to me, is what FPS games are for. Everyone get's about the same controls, guns, etc and it's a "fair" fight where you run around and kill people and die a lot yourself. Some people like that, but I'm not one of them. I don't hold any ill will towards those people, I just don't want to do that in my MMO game when I'm playing it, and any amount of tweaking to the PVP experience probably isn't going to make me want to do PVP.

The problem is not the PVP experience, it's the player (me). What inherently drives PVPers to strive to compete in PVP does not motivate me at all. I'm not wired like that, mentally. I'm just not interested in PVP, in and of itself, for what it is, like those other people are.

For that reason I see no practical sense in trying to make a PVP experience that is geared toward trying to please me or with the intention of trying to get me to try the PVP. PVP is just not my thing. If anything they ought to tweak PVP for people who claim to like it and want to do it in the first place. This is why I suggested scheduled times for it and public accolades for winning and some form of prizes for the winners. That, as far as I can tell, is what those people who like PVP want and are interested in: the thrill of victory, the publicity and glory that it garners, and some tangible prizes of some kind.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Segev wrote:
I think you do a disservice to PvP players when you attribute self-aggrandizement at the expense of others and "ruining others' fun" to them as their primary motivations.
Primary motivation? That's probably taking it too far.
CONSISTENT motivation for a significant segment of the PvP population? Undeniable.
This is one of those things where a PERSON is smart, but PEOPLE are stupid (thank you Men In Black).

Exactly

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
This is the deepest divide I

This is the deepest divide I've seen in MMO players ever.

PvP is not your enemy. PvE is not your enemy. I maintain that PvE only players only need keep their "flag" set to only PvE.

If you choose to do that then (and this is important) "DON'T be a HATER":

Scenario 1: "Ugh.. look at those two over there having fun in PvP.. someone should stop them from doing that.. but not me.. I hate PvP and refuse to do it.. but SOMEONE."
YOU sir (or madam) are a hater.

Scenario 2: "Wow look at those guys over there really going at it.. I'll rez that guy on my faction when they're done if he doesn't respond"
YOU sir (or madam), are NOT a hater.

Scenario 3: "Oh look.. they're fighting each other.. perfect prey for me to come take them both out!"
YOU sir (or madam) are more than welcome to add me to your social list because you are awesome.

- -

MWM.. don't build a game for the haters. They will always find something new to hate.

Crowd Control Enthusiast

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
In the case of 3 year old

In the case of 3 year old "Missing Worlds Media".. YOU are NOT the father..

**Runs backstage crying**

Crowd Control Enthusiast

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
heh.. i never knew i was a

heh.. i never knew i was a Care Bear, and proud of it. :)

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
(No subject)

Hey Jay
Scenario 4: Those guys are fighting again. I'm gonna go away.

By the way. It doesn't bother me at all when someone calls me a hater.

Psa_97:10 Ye that love the LORD, hate evil
Pro_8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
And welcome to the world of

And welcome to the world of developers. Where even just having the option of "being able to do X" typically divides the player base.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

And welcome to the world of developers. Where even just having the option of "being able to do X" typically divides the player base.

Oh, but if the Devs 'waste' time on X then they won't be able to complete Y and Z, which we like!

Look, I'm not against having PvP as an option in the game, I just don't want it to affect my PvE.

Be Well!
Fireheart

sev171
sev171's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/10/2015 - 14:33
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Gangrel wrote:
And welcome to the world of developers. Where even just having the option of "being able to do X" typically divides the player base.

Oh, but if the Devs 'waste' time on X then they won't be able to complete Y and Z, which we like!
Look, I'm not against having PvP as an option in the game, I just don't want it to affect my PvE.
Be Well!
Fireheart

But they're not wasting time... They're designing a system where both benefit eachother while both can remain separate. They're trying to make it so that they can work on both simultaneously without one interfering with the other. This isn't a bad thing. not at all.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Just in case the "Don't be

Just in case the "Don't be hater" comment was in any way directed at me (and I don't think it was, necessarily), I just want to point out that I think the hater point of view would be "Don't have PVP at all" whereas MY point of view is "The devs should be spending their time developing a PVP experience that PVPers will like, not wasting it trying to get PVE players like me involved in something we inherently don't care for in the first place."

I mean really, some people like vanilla, some like chocolate. Let's not try to force equal amounts of both flavors on everyone.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

sev171
sev171's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/10/2015 - 14:33
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

"The devs should be spending their time developing a PVP experience that PVPers will like, not wasting it trying to get PVE players like me involved in something we inherently don't care for in the first place."

But that's exactly what they're doing. They're just doing it in a more efficient way that makes it so there isn't as much of a learning curve for the player. Overall if what they are doing works, it's a win-win and we the players shouldn't even notice.

sev171
sev171's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/10/2015 - 14:33
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

This is why I suggested scheduled times for it and public accolades for winning and some form of prizes for the winners. That, as far as I can tell, is what those people who like PVP want and are interested in: the thrill of victory, the publicity and glory that it garners, and some tangible prizes of some kind.

+1 absolutely agreed. I personally enjoy PVP, but only if it's done well. I don't PVP to cause someone else to lose, that just seems ridiculous to me. I mean, I don't play mario cart with a friend to make them lose. I play it with them to have a good time with some friendly competition. I PVP because of I find it more fun to work on a team to play against players. A thinking player is inherently harder to beat than a predictable ai. It's less about memorizing that buttons to press to beat x boss and more about developing tactics to counter the other team. Victory is more satisfying, and failure is a learning experience. When done right there are also tangible awards that make it worth going back. Also I tend to get bored of grinding endless mobs in endgame.

Pages