Trending Games | Pirate101 | World of Warcraft | Guild Wars 2 | EverQuest

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,899,790 Users Online:0
Games:751  Posts:6,268,532

Show Blog

Link to this blogs RSS feed

BadSpock's Logical Conclusions.

My random thoughts about MMORPGs. A bit of critique, suggestion, debate, and insanity. Enjoy.

Author: BadSpock

My perfect MMORPG - Part 7: PVE (section 3)

Posted by BadSpock Monday October 8 2007 at 2:58PM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

Sorry, it's been a while... I've been playing a LOT of Halo 3 haha. It's kind of dominated my life since it was released.

I even cancelled my new EQ2 subscription before the free 30 days ended because I knew it'd go to waste, as I'd just be playing Halo.

But, very VERY long over due is the final PVE section on the PVE Siege Warfare.

 

I've already talked about the quests, factions, dungeons, raids, and all other aspects of the PVE system in my ideal MMORPG. Even with just those systems in place, you could probably create a full and complete MMOPRG by today's standards, but as usual I want a game that offers more.

Tabula Rasa has taken the first giant leep towards this type of game play. In Tabula Rasa the enemy faction, the Bane, can attack and control different points of the maps. Players have to then band together and work with friendly NPC's to recapture these points. Problem in Tabula Rasa is that the A.I. isn't very good, and a lot of bases (at least the last time I played) could be recaptured from the Bane by a single player. Hopefully, they get it all worked out before release because it really is an ingenious system.

The problem, in my opinion, with Tabula Rasa's system is that so many points are capturable by the Bane that it can interfere with the rest of the game. You may find the base you need to go to in order to complete a quest or repair your equipment is now under Bane control. I don't like that idea, I'm all about giving people options and choices, not forcing players into doing anything that they don't want to do.

So my PVE warfare system would work similar, yet with a few key differences.

The world would be laid out so all of the major questing locations are contained in areas that are heavily protected from the enemy NPC faction.

The only towns/outposts/cities that are designed for the PVE Siege Warfare are those in the outlying regions. I want it to feel like a war that is faught on a distant front, not in the back yard. But why? Doesn't this take away from immersion? I concede that it may, however with the quest and storyline system as it is described in my previous posts I feel that the "war" will be felt no matter where you are in the game world. So why make it an inconvienience to the player that doesn't want any part of this kind of game play?

The enemy faction that players will be battling for control of these outlying regions will be the same enemy that is dealt with in the majority of quest lines and the main story arc. It's the same war, the same enemy, just being faught on different fronts simultaneously is how I would like to think of it.

The enemy will attack these regions and will control them if players don't participate. They will not continue to advance into the "major" game world areas even if they control every single point in the PVE Siege Warfare areas.

By the way, I keep saying "PVE Siege Warfare" because it will be very, very similar (if not identicle in some aspects) to the PVP Siege Warfare that I described in earlier posts. The PVP war will take place on seperate lands as discussed before, and the PVE warfare in the "main" land where all the quests/story elements exist. The same type of systems like Siege weapons and Throne Room control etc, but you'll be fighting Mobs/NPCs instead of other players.

The enemy faction will even have a home city deep behind the front lines of the PVE war, and if players can defeat the enemy faction time and time again, pushing further and further into their territory capturing control points they'll eventually be able to lay siege to the enemy faction capital in a massive raid, including mini-bosses and an all-powerful super boss. Obviously, unlike the instanced dungeon/raiding game, this will all be in the open world and without instancing.

To counter the imbalance that we see in Tabula Rasa, and in order for all players to be able to participate in the PVE Siege Warfare, you have to make the enemy you fight a little different. The best comparison I can give is to (of course) the A.I. in Halo 3.

First off you have the little guys, like the Grunts in Halo that are weak, come in large numbers, and are generally stupid unless being directly ordered around by more advanced units. In my ideal MMO, these will be balanced so that even a first-hour newbie can hold their ground against them, while an experienced veteran will be able to cut through them like butter.

Second you'll have mid-level units, like the Jackals in Halo 3, that are tougher, smarter, and use solid tactics, yet don't flood into battle in mass like the low-level Grunts do. A small band of "newbie" players will be able to defeat them, though 1vs1 solo will be very very difficult for a newbie player. Mid-level and experienced players will find these units a comparable challenge, while advanced players will still dominate them.

Lastly you'll have the "elite" enemy soldiers. These will be the leaders of the enemy faction's attack groups, those in charge of the sieges. Also, the head of their defense if the players are assaulting an enemy encampment. These elites will wipe the floor with newbie players, but a large enough group of mid level players can take them down. Even the most advanced players may want to group up to combat these enemies, as they will be extremely difficult for anyone to solo.

By doing it this way, you make a system where everyone can participate in the conflict, but you still give people a challenge that is not impossible nor is too easy. If players choose to not participate, they don't risk being annihilated as the enemy will move in on their prime questing lands, none of that, but instead they will just be missing out on another great game play system that is fun and rewarding.

Speaking of rewards, I'd like things to be handled very similarly to the PVP Siege warfare. You get money, experience, and of course up your skills for fighting and defeating enemy units. More for the elites and less for the grunts. Also, for participating in the successful siege or defense of a control point you gain additional experience, money, and influence.

All faction influence gain for the PVE Siege Warfare will be with the main army of the PVE world. The PVP world is split into the different factions as previously discussed, but because of the enemy threat the factions have banded together to form one great army in the PVE world. The ONLY way to get the titles/rewards from this faction is to participate in the war.

Obviously, this is another great way to play your character and level/gain skill without grinding. Tired of doing quests? Don't feel like running a dungeon or raid? No crawl-dungeons? Open your map and you'll get a run down of what areas are currently under control by players or by the enemy faction, and you'll even get an indicator as to which areas are currently in conflict. Hop over there (more on travel later) and fight for the honor and glory of the Kingdom, all while getting money, experience, and influence for yourself.

What I forgot to mention in the PVP Siege Warfare system was the auto-grouping feature. You can head to an area by yourself and be automatically thrown into a group with other players in the area. This is advantageous to everyone because of the Rank based buffs in PVP, and also the experience sharing system.

The PVE Siege Warfare will work exactly the same way, with different Ranks having expanded powers and AoE buffs, but unlike the PVP system, the PVE system everyone will "work" for the same faction.

As a quick end note, if they players push the enemy back to their home city and lay siege to it, killing the final super boss they will "win" the PVE war and be rewarded accordingly. After a brief period of time, the enemy will return as Undead versions of their former selves and will be more powerful to push the players out of their areas. After this period has passed, when the scales are yet again made even, then Undead will phase out and the living armies phased in. This way, it kind of adds a story/continuity balance to the system, but it also makes it really hard for players to hold onto all the lands forever.

 

I hope this makes sense... it's been a while since I've thought about any of this, been too busy with Halo! Thanks for reading, sorry it's been so long, and I'll be sure to keep coming back and editting/adding to this post.

Please comment!

vajuras writes:

Good blog but I must offer some concerns after careful reading this concept.

possible flaws if I understand correctly:

1) PVP has no impact on PVE so there may not be a point to it. I would love to see games interlink them more. For instance at least Spellborn will put rare minerals in PVP lands giving players a reason to venture there. Casual PVE types need a reason to tryout PVP because here we can provide a dynamic endgame. If you care not for this then you can cut the PVP. Yeah I know, I know PVPers will be pissed but if you're not going to glue the two together then really you're doing everyone a disservice. For instance in Age of Conan with the BattleKeeps they will provide resources as well from what I know.

2) Denial of Resource. Losing an objective should cause discomfort. For instance in RTS like "Company of Heroes" we have supply lines and disrupting it makes me want to reclaim. They should feel discomfort that is why they're going to do it. In City of Heroes you get bonuses for taking the zone for example and cool temporary items. IF the war is far away from home then it cant hurt to pressure them and make them coordinate efforts. In Battlegrounds we saw raids split- some when to go take mines, others assaulted, and others retreated to defend an objective. Players are smart give them time.

3) You might rely a bit too much perhaps on readers having experienced the games listed here. I've played Halo 3 and beaten it but for example I know not the names of the PVE mobs how is it you know these names BTW lol good job.

4) Grouping - are we Class based or Skill based I forget. Regardless I'd add a matchmaking system to make the pairing easier if possible.

I think all of these flaws will be overcome in WAR for instance I think everything everyone does contributes to RvR. I am not too familiar with TR atm need to play with it more. So little time, sigh

Always enjoy reading your blogs keep going. refine, rewrite, put on top when they get updated

Mon Oct 08 2007 7:17PM Report
vajuras writes:

BTW, golden award for stressing newbies and veterans can team together. That is a strength from City Of Heroes sidekicking feature

Mon Oct 08 2007 7:20PM Report
BadSpock writes:

my philosophy on PVP is that no one should be forced into it, but you want to make the options available in PVP so awesome and fun that people will want to try it out. a lot of this comes from balance. not just balance between class/skills but also with less dependancy on gear and more on player skill and intelligence.

yeah, i wrote this one in a hurry and have referenced Halo 3 and Tabula Rasa quite a lot, I probably should go back and add more detail for those who haven't played either

it is skill based, and once I explain the combat system I think it'll be apparent that grouping isn't a matter of grabbing the "right" people (like the holy trinity of tank/dps/heal in other games) but instead about working with what you have and making it effective through teamwork and coordination

As for denial of resources, I forgot to mention that PVE Siege Warfare areas that the players control will be PRIME locations for the Trade Routes system I described in earlier posts. Trade Routes to these areas will be very dangerous, yet the most rewarding. This serves a two-fold purpose, keep the Trade Routes "fresh" by having them not always available because of the status of the War, but also gets people involved in the War.

And yes, I hate the level disparity that most games create, and so the very nature of my skill/hybrid advancement system and with the way combat will work gets rid of a lot of that disparity.

Tue Oct 09 2007 9:29AM Report
vajuras writes:

I need to go read up on Trade Routes. Thanks for pointing me to that I am curious how that concept works heh

Wed Oct 10 2007 12:35AM Report
BadSpock writes:

yeah, you do! the Trade Routes system is a throw back to the good old days of Earth and Beyond, but a LOT more involved and hopefully a new feature that some lucky developer will read in my blog and implement into a game... and pay me royalties :)

Wed Oct 10 2007 10:48AM Report
ziabatsu writes:

Anything that doesn't allow carebear and corpse looting is carebear imo. Played Ultima Online before all the BS was added, nothing has replaced it so far. Hoping Darkfall will.

Wed Nov 07 2007 12:25PM Report

MMORPG.com writes:
Login or Register to post a comment