Announcements

Check out the new UPDATED Powers List: https://cityoftitans.com/content/power-sets

Missed a few of Artstrong's Twitch streams? Check out some here: https://cityoftitans.com/content/2022-twitch-review

Get the latest Patch now! The MacOS Client Launcher is Now available in the store! If you've already donated $50 or more, you'll find the Mac Launcher on your rewards page. https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/

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

How to make PVP fun

302 posts / 0 new
Last post
Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 weeks ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
I suppose I should chime in

I suppose I should chime in again to point out that my biggest horse in this race is the idea that the MECHANICS for PvP and PvE be identical. That is, we scale PvE such that it can and does use the same powers, numbers, etc. as PvP, so your character functions the same way no matter who you're fighting (an AI-controlled foe or a player-controlled foe).

The rest is of academic interest to me, more than anything else. That, however, is critical to ensuring that both "sides" of the game are able to be developed in as much parallel and cooperation as possible, and to garner the most benefit from each "other side" being developed as possible.

That sentence is a bit garbly. To try to clarify: if we do it right, spending time on developing PvP or PvE won't necessarily be 100% "wasted" time from the perspective of those who only prefer the other kind of gameplay, because development is not essentially split between two different games that just happen to look like a single game. They'll really be the same game, mechanically speaking.

Business Manager

whiteperegrine
whiteperegrine's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 06/19/2014 - 14:49
how I read that is: "the

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

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 weeks ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
whiteperegrine wrote:
whiteperegrine wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business Manager

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
whiteperegrine wrote:
whiteperegrine wrote:

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

As one of the people on the powers design team and gameplay team this is an jnaccurate statement. The mechanics and systems driving combat are designed to work for boh pve and pvp without many changes if any. This is to decrease any learning curve - as in a player should have a relaive expectation of how a power operates in either pve or pvp. Numerical values in certain instances reslting in ouput or duration may need some tweaks, but the functions should still remain (this of course wil bear rigorous testing). Thus dar our simulations have been run based on pve if that gives any indicatoon.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
warcabbit
warcabbit's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 6 days ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/06/2012 - 17:39
Segev is our Business Manager

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Lead

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
I would love to see NPCs

I would love to see NPCs aggro on PCs as if they were PCs. Always thought healers should draw more aggro than a tank.

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 15 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
@Segev, @Tannim, @Warcabbit

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

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

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

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

Just don't expect ME to do it.

Be Well!
Fireheart

whiteperegrine
whiteperegrine's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 06/19/2014 - 14:49
Sergev and Tannim, it was

Sergev and Tannim, it was merely a statement of how the comment "read" to me is all.

Comicsluvr
Comicsluvr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/07/2013 - 03:39
Greyhawk wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 49 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Comicsluvr wrote:
Comicsluvr wrote:

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

Sounds reasonable to me. Might even be the best possible way to get a healthy PvP community started.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 weeks ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
Really? I'd expect exactly

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

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

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

Business Manager

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
One idea I like is to give

One idea I like is to give the people doing voluntary PVP (that is those who are self-selecting for PVP on their own) randomized reward drops for BOTH defeating someone AND for being defeated. For one thing, it makes the PVP combat actually drop more swag, which is a thing (you're not generally dropping as many minions and stuff in PVP so swag generation is slower) and for another a bully is going to look pretty stupid ganking a noob only to have the noob post on chat the infamous "Captain Noob received a Purple" message from the game. I still like rewards for winning tournaments though too. Maybe some tiered prize structure for the top X finishers, maybe even some door prizes for everyone who shows up.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 49 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Heh.

Heh.

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

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

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

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


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 15 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Super-powered MMA League.

Super-powered MMA League. Golden Glove Boxing. Even... er, WWE.

Be Well!
Fireheart

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
Self Flagging is the only

Self Flagging is the only system I fan fully support.

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

Crowd Control Enthusiast

whiteperegrine
whiteperegrine's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 06/19/2014 - 14:49
have annual, semi-annual or

have annual, semi-annual or quarterly tournie's with some kind of reward. otherwise, given this is a game that is not dependant on "gear" no reason for everyday pvp action to be rewarded. combining tournie's with no regular rewards for daily pvp should (in theory) attract those who genuinely pvp for the competition fun versus those that find fun in getting rewarded for being complete jerks.

badges...just for participating is good. perhaps, if there were tournie a badge for the top performers.

Stalker
Stalker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 2 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 05/21/2014 - 20:28
Yallo! I'm a little late to

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

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

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

Stalkers don't die: They simply... Disappear.

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 weeks ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
No, I do understand. My point

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

That said, while I prefer more immersive options, flagged-only is workable in line with most of what I'd like to see happen.

Business Manager

Stalker
Stalker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 2 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 05/21/2014 - 20:28
I suppose I should have

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

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

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

Stalkers don't die: They simply... Disappear.

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 weeks ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
Ah, I see what you're getting

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Yeah, that would probably be wise for any organized PvP efforts. Ladders, standings, rankings, etc. are often popular things to track.

Business Manager

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 15 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

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

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

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

Be Well!
Fireheart

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 weeks ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
I won't belabor the details

I won't belabor the details of "more immersive options," other than to say that even with them I would want it to be always extremely clear before anybody even accidentally flagged themselves that they were about to, and give them a chance to bow out of it.

That said, we're all but certainly going with a hard-set "no PvP" flag as the default, with the option to set it to "PvP yes" only if you actively choose to do so. Obviously, being "no PvP" would mean you couldn't go into PvP-only events (like arena type things, or the like). I'd want us to be EXTREMELY careful with those, because we'd want to make sure you couldn't go into them, get flagged for PvP, then have it fail to turn off when you leave (unless you wanted it left on). That's the kind of bug I foresee and want to be very vigilent against.

Business Manager

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

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

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

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

McNum
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 06:49
So, this is going to be a bit

So, this is going to be a bit of an anecdote, but but another game made me think about PVP in a fun way: Splatoon.

See, I'm pretty much a Care Bear through and through in MMOs. I do not like PVP, at all. And yet... I got into the free demo of Splatoon and I am going to play the heck out of the full game, in PVP. Which stands out enough from my usual gaming preference to make me go "Wait... what?" So, from a PvE player, here's what I managed to think about on the why I like that particular style of PVP. Oviously, since Splatoon is third person arena shooter (kind of) and CoT is an MMO, not all of this is immediately applicable, but I want to share as a bit of food for thought. Getting someone like me to gleefully PVP is quite the feat, so there's something there to look at.

Anyway, for those of you that don't know it, the game is a 4-on-4 arena shooter, where the goal of the game is to cover as much of the floor in your team's ink by shooting at it. You can move fast in your own color ink by transforming into a squid, and can instantly jump to any teammate, although there's a few seconds of travel time. The demo had four different weapons to use and matches were limited to three minutes.

So, why did none of this bug me while played PVP in CoH was a pretty stressful and un-fun experience for me? Well, I am not sure, but I noticed some things...

- You win not by killing enemies, although that helps. You can actually contribute much to your team by avoiding fights.
- If you die, you're back in the game in like 5-6 seconds, respawn and travel time included.
- Spawn camping is impossible as players are completely invincible in their own spawn area, while keeping their full offensive power.
- There is no chat channels. Neither text nor voice. You get a few basic team commands, but that's about it.
- Even if you lose, you get points. At about a 70% ratio of the winner.

Obviously, these do not all transfer directly to an MMO, but the ones that I could see do transfer are the utter invincibility in spawn areas, and the rapid reinsertion into the combat zone. Probably not 6 seconds fast, would make rezzing in PVP redundant, but inside 30 seconds at most. Fast travel powers and common enough respawn areas in the zone would fix that. Who says a zone only can have one hospital, anyway? Let the player choose where to respawn.

Getting 70% of the reward for losing compared to winning means that even if someone does gank you from out of nowhere, you get stuff.

Now, the no chat channels is a rather big point of contention in some game communities, but I found it nice. Obviously, an MMO needs chats, but it'd be nice if there was an option to auto-ignore enemy channels while in a PVP instance. Maybe even make arena fights lock out all other chat channels for the duration. At least the opposing team.

The short version here: Eliminate spawn camping, focus on extremely rapid reset times, reward the losing player nearly as much as the winning player.

I might be willing to try something like that in an MMO. No promises on actually liking it, though. But... I'd try it.

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
McNum wrote:
McNum wrote:

So, this is going to be a bit of an anecdote, but but another game made me think about PVP in a fun way: Splatoon.
See, I'm pretty much a Care Bear through and through in MMOs. I do not like PVP, at all. And yet... I got into the free demo of Splatoon and I am going to play the heck out of the full game, in PVP. Which stands out enough from my usual gaming preference to make me go "Wait... what?" So, from a PvE player, here's what I managed to think about on the why I like that particular style of PVP. Oviously, since Splatoon is third person arena shooter (kind of) and CoT is an MMO, not all of this is immediately applicable, but I want to share as a bit of food for thought. Getting someone like me to gleefully PVP is quite the feat, so there's something there to look at.
Anyway, for those of you that don't know it, the game is a 4-on-4 arena shooter, where the goal of the game is to cover as much of the floor in your team's ink by shooting at it. You can move fast in your own color ink by transforming into a squid, and can instantly jump to any teammate, although there's a few seconds of travel time. The demo had four different weapons to use and matches were limited to three minutes.
So, why did none of this bug me while played PVP in CoH was a pretty stressful and un-fun experience for me? Well, I am not sure, but I noticed some things...
- You win not by killing enemies, although that helps. You can actually contribute much to your team by avoiding fights.
- If you die, you're back in the game in like 5-6 seconds, respawn and travel time included.
- Spawn camping is impossible as players are completely invincible in their own spawn area, while keeping their full offensive power.
- There is no chat channels. Neither text nor voice. You get a few basic team commands, but that's about it.
- Even if you lose, you get points. At about a 70% ratio of the winner.
Obviously, these do not all transfer directly to an MMO, but the ones that I could see do transfer are the utter invincibility in spawn areas, and the rapid reinsertion into the combat zone. Probably not 6 seconds fast, would make rezzing in PVP redundant, but inside 30 seconds at most. Fast travel powers and common enough respawn areas in the zone would fix that. Who says a zone only can have one hospital, anyway? Let the player choose where to respawn.
Getting 70% of the reward for losing compared to winning means that even if someone does gank you from out of nowhere, you get stuff.
Now, the no chat channels is a rather big point of contention in some game communities, but I found it nice. Obviously, an MMO needs chats, but it'd be nice if there was an option to auto-ignore enemy channels while in a PVP instance. Maybe even make arena fights lock out all other chat channels for the duration. At least the opposing team.
The short version here: Eliminate spawn camping, focus on extremely rapid reset times, reward the losing player nearly as much as the winning player.
I might be willing to try something like that in an MMO. No promises on actually liking it, though. But... I'd try it.

Mostly you noticed the inherent differences between design for a PvE experience and design for a PvP experience..
I, and others, have pointed out in this discusson already what those are so there is no point in reiterating them.

I'll just leave it here with reiterating that at their core the playstyle of PvE is fundamentally different from cooperative PvE and that again is fundamentally different from PvP (and yes, the duel or the goup versus group are also entirely different again)

McNum
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 06:49
Nadira wrote:
Nadira wrote:

Mostly you noticed the inherent differences between design for a PvE experience and design for a PvP experience..
I, and others, have pointed out in this discusson already what those are so there is no point in reiterating them.
I'll just leave it here with reiterating that at their core the playstyle of PvE is fundamentally different from cooperative PvE and that again is fundamentally different from PvP (and yes, the duel or the goup versus group are also entirely different again)

Well, in comparison to CoH PVP where the experience for a new player was "Enter zone, get teleported into a full team and one-shot. Respawn, try to leave, get teleported into same group and one-shot once again, log off the game, and never ever set foot in a PVP zone again" it's a rather significant difference. PVP in CoH just didn't work. That people managed to play it competitively despite that is to their credit, not the game's. It was way too opaque, your character did not play like your character normally did, and there was no obvious points of entry, and no incentive for new players to try. At least after the novelty of the Issue 4 arenas wore off.

To have a thriving PVP game in the same spirit as the PVE game of CoH, you need a hook for new players, eliminate trash talking completely, and encourage players to team up. Or at least give them situational awareness of where their allies are, teamed or not. I suppose turning each side into a League setup like from CoH would work. One on one PVP outside designated arenas should generally be discouraged at least.

And yes, trash talking needs to go. It does nothing but create a toxic environment for new players. If it was up to me, entering PVP mode would severely limit your chat options, like maybe only Team and League (or its equivalent) would be open to send and receive messages. Tells would be auto-replied to with "Character is in PVP and cannot reply now." Yes, superheroes and villains bantering at each other is classic comic book, Spider-Man just wouldn't be himself if he didn't mercilessly taunt his enemies, but those are just fictional characters. Both the first and second P in PVP stands for Player. In that case, some sacrifices have to be made. You cannot allow a player to abuse another player as much as you can allow them to abuse an NPC.

Segev
Segev's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 weeks ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 15:35
One of the things that seems

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business Manager

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 15 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
That seems like a useful

That seems like a useful summation of these discussions, Segev.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 11 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Segev wrote:
Segev wrote:

One of the things that seems universal to successful PvP is a formalization of the contest. An arena with a definite "fight starts now" type of thing is how most of the popular WoW PvP happens (or, at least, it's how my brother plays it preferentially). MOBAs have definite starts-of-contest and final victory conditions whereby the contest ends. The most popular ideas so far for CoT have been "competitive missions," wherein the players all sign up to be on opposite sides with opposing victory conditions (at least, that's what it's seemed to be to me).
All of this is to say, the key to direct PvP seems to really center around not just voluntary participation, but the ability to constrain it to a designated time period (at least on the beginning end) which starts everybody on at least known ground (whether that's "everybody is the same level to start" as in MOBAs or some other baseline of measurement), and with definite victory conditions that, when achieved, end the contest without forcing the loser into another if he isn't interested.

Welcome to arena's/capture the flag etc etc. Structured PvP events.

Come to think of it, one reason as to why Arena might well have failed so much is because you had to go to an arena and queue... and if you wanted to do any other form of content, you had to leave the queue.

Just like how the iTrial LFG interface was actually such a failure. It actually prevented you from queuing up and just waiting for the queue to pop.

If it did that, then everyone wouldn't have gathered in Pocket D to form teams for the iTrials.

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.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 49 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Pocket D ... Dark Astoria,

Pocket D ... Dark Astoria, Vanguard Headquarters ... it functionally turned into a case where people would just gather in co-op zones that didn't require a lot of travel to get to. It was just easier to "show up" and get invited into the League that was forming. Which I suppose was really a testament to how EASY it was to form and join groups, because people preferred to do so through chat rather than through an automated matching tool (over which they had no control).


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I totally agree with Segev.

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

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Pages