Synopsis: Chess and Cards are predicated in creating a fair contest of skills between players. MMO PvP is typically predicated in encouraging players to spend a lot of time in the game to build asymmetrical advantage over others; to produce a stacked deck. A system that draws from the lessons of Chess and Cards is presented in effort to provide for inherently-balanced MMO PvP.
I was reading vajuras's article "Static Class Based Games and Their Flaws" and found that I had a bit more to say about the topic than I cared to push into a comment.
When thinking about PvP and making it work in a fantasy setting with player avatars in combat, I've come to the realization that PvP games can work one of at least three ways.
1. Like Chess, where all players start with the exact same pieces and they then attack. The emphasis is on the attack.
2. Like Cards, where all players start with a random set of pieces from a shared pool, spend some time jockeying to get better pieces from that same pool, then when a player believes they have a good hand, they attack. The emphasis is on the jockeying.
3. Like MMOs, where each player spends time and energy prior to the game to build the pieces that they want to bring to the attack, then attack.
There are variations on these themes and there are others as well. The point here is that of the three presented, I find the MMO formula the most ludicrous. Imagine if you were to play Chess against someone and they had eight queens simply because they played more Chess. Or if you were to play Poker against someone and they were known to play with a Royal Flush. That they bought on a web site. It seems rather idiotic to me, but I'm a fan of the Good Fight.
If PvP is going to take place in a fantasy setting, then I say structure it such that characters no longer have static skills and equipment. Have every character enter each PvP encounter in vanity items only; fancy clothes, jewelry, swagger stick, whatever. They then are either given the stock equipment and skills for the PvP encounter (as with Chess) or they are given a basic set of equipment and skills to start with, and then the game transitions into a period of rushing around trying to gain additional equipment and skills. When one side thinks they have a winning combination, they start their attack (as with Cards).
Here's a variation on that: permit one piece of static equipment or skill on each character, but the static equipment is taken from the shared pool. So if one person on each side of an encounter chooses the healing skill, then they each get half of the healing skill.
Something that may not be clear up to this point is that each PvP encounter starts from scratch. You may get a great setup during one encounter, but once it is over, you are back to square one. You may have gotten a win out of the last encounter, but it doesn't roll over into the next one.
Where's the fun in that??
It lies in playing good, fair games instead of trying to get eight queens so you can dominate your opponent in Chess.
Where does this leave the whole notion of sandboxed, free-for-all PvP entertainment? Right where it has always been: in a niche. Persistent gains and PvP do not match up. This is the linkage that Jimmy_Scythe pointed out in his very good article "FFA PvP Part 3: Tracks in the Sand". It is the reason that I believe that as soon as someone creates a PvE-only competitor, the Eve Online player base will be rather seriously depleted.
PvP must be focused on the encounter. Players must be permitted to adapt to changing circumstances, understanding of how the encounters play out and so forth.
Note that if PvP focuses on individual encounters, then the rules of the game can be varied from encounter to encounter. During one encounter, it may be decided to leave out all fire effects. Players would have to adapt to that lack. Players who favor locating fire effects and using them in their PvP would be disappointed, but if they are adamant about using fire then they just don't agree to the rule change. But they'd do it out of preference, not out of the fact that their static character that is founded entirely on fire effects is now useless. They have the opportunity to adapt.
Can this style of PvP have any role in a persistent world? Sure. The persistent world could be fought over by the various PvP factions. Those factions would have to establish rules for encounters, however. I've proposed a system before where a faction can declare that it wants to battle for a certain stretch of ground at a certain time with a certain number of players using certain rules. The faction that controls the adjoining ground can either accept, reject or counter that proposal. If they agree, they can battle it out and hope to win using fair rules.
For example, the Lean Machine faction borders three other factions. One of them, the Knights Tumbler faction controls an NPC town that makes a certain style of armor. The Lean Machine guys get armor according to the normal rules of encounter, but the way it looks is determined from the armor-crafting NPCs that they control. And this particular NPC town makes very cool looking armor (that has absolutely no role in character effectiveness). So they challenge Knights Tumbler for the town, placing a chunk of their own territory on the block in balance. Maybe that land has some resources that the Knights Tumbler would like to get.
So one way or another, the two factions agree that it will be a 10v10 encounter using the standard rules, starting in 15 minutes. The time arrives, and the two groups enter the contested area. They play to completion, and the winner takes all. Knights Tumbler loses the town but calls foul because one of their guys had to deal with an emergency at home. They want a rematch. Lean Machine ignores the call for a rematch and looks forward to wearing their new armor.
Consider too that a faction may build its homes (full of trophies and vanity stuff) in a particular area that it captured from a neighboring faction. If that area becomes contested, they might lose all that stuff. They could move it out before the fight, of course, but whatever is permanently fixed would be lost.
Why would anyone enter battle? Because of someone betting something that you want - or your battle timer running down. A faction is obligated to enter battle once a week (or some amount of land per week, whatever). If they do not, then they sacrifice some standard chunk of land to each neighboring faction. That continues until the faction is swallowed up by its neighbors.
My prior article in this series, "Making PvP Work: Ranking Players" still holds; when players vary in skill, the players of widely disparate skills should be isolated from one another. In a faction system like the above, players who are bumped up to a higher rank would have to find a faction to join. Factions would always be looking for good players so that they can hold onto their gains.
I could go farther into this whole system, but the important point here is that I believe that PvP should start with either a level playing field, or one that is randomly canted per encounter. That makes it fair for all players who are in the game. It also means that player skill and chance become the keys to success. Not stacking the deck.
User Comments
The thing about MMO"s is that the appeal is acheiving something. If you turn them into PVP shooters or RTS games or Online Card games, where's the achievement?
Although I enjoy RTS or even better RTT games, I don't want a first day player to log onto my MMO and beat me head to head when I am playing a character I have put 1000 hours into. Why would I?
grimfall: "The thing about MMO"s is that the appeal is acheiving something. If you turn them into PVP shooters or RTS games or Online Card games, where's the achievement?"
The appeal for you may be achieving something, but there is nothing inherent in an MMO that requires it to entertain through achievement. For example, the web itself is a socializing and crafting MMO. MMORPG.COM is a socializing and crafting MMO. The article attempts to describe a means of creating an MMO where players can experience a level playing field.
It also describes a system where achievements are retained, except that the achievements are decoupled from the effectiveness of your game pieces. Just because a faction captures territory doesn't mean that it gets more queens in a game of Chess. Yet that's the way players seem to expect a game to operate. Current MMO PvP is pretty badly broken as far as I'm concerned.
grimfall: "I don't want a first day player to log onto my MMO and beat me head to head when I am playing a character I have put 1000 hours into. Why would I?"
Because you want a fair fight, not a stacked deck. Players are stacking their own decks in order to beat players who have greater inherent skills. The ethic that game designers are reinforcing in players is "If I grind enough time in this game, I will have more queens for the Chess match and that means that I will win." It's not exactly an ethic that inspires players to think in terms of heroes and villains. Only grinders and non-grinders. Or people who buy advantages with cash.
Put those 1000 hours into being a better player while using the same game pieces as the other players in the game. If you're good, you should rise to the top ranks of the player population. If not, at least you get to play a good game against your peers.
The entire article is about producing a level playing field. A fair fight. I would think that would appeal to anyone.
Stay on topic, folks. I have deleted two comments which existed primarily as trolls. If you feel that you cannot be bothered to read the article or to respond to the points presented in the article, please do not bother commenting.
I've been saying it for a while now. Although my experience pertains almost entirely to World of Warcraft, I have to agree with you without exception. Although, I find it hard to think of a way to implement your ideas into an MMO, even with your examples.
To me MMOs have always been about the advancement of your character. You play to get better, you like to see yourself getting better, to feel the increase in power, etc.
This is the problem with open world (FFA) PvP because someone will always be further advanced and the other less advanced. Does the further advanced player deserve his advantage? Sure, but exploiting it isn't good either.
I'm all about the fair fight too, but why even have advancement if all fights are fair?
This is the problem MMOs are facing when it comes to PvP.
Blizzard (and many other upcoming MMOs) have realized that level 10 vs. level 100 is bad, so they section PvP into tiers, high level for high level players, etc.
But you still need an advancemet system. Level 70 shouldn't always = Level 70. You need something to differentiate them... so they use gear.
I'd rather they used player skill, but "being the best" isn't good enough for most MMO players, they want others to know they are the best. To see it.
It's an interesting problem, and thus far there has been no solution that everyone can agree on. Probably never will be either, you just have to find a system you like and run with it.
I dunno, progression and PvP are pretty much anathema for me, you focus on 1 or the other...at least for me.
If you want to play chess, I would be happy to comply...card games, sure...but if I am to progress and achieve stuff on 1 toon, days after days after days...no PvP for me...I find it horrible to have a formulae where 1 player success mean another failure, this is against the very idea of coop as well.
In chess, if I beat you today, tomorrow if we replay, there are no consequences but the fact we both learn and increase our skills. I feel the hook to play chess a lot less than the hook for coop and achievements however. I want to group the other faction, not to fight them. We may compete, but it would always be positive and nice, not a real opposition. But that is me...I am really allergic to PvP in MMOs.
heerobya: "I'm all about the fair fight too, but why even have advancement if all fights are fair?"
The fights are fair, but the advancement is for a larger goal. I started to use Risk as an example, but realized that Eve Online probably works as well. Neither of those games relies on fair fights, but the overarching game is one of global domination. Factions fight over sections of the world. Which sections a faction holds determines what sections can be attacked.
Make the individual fights fair and then the advancements are empowering a faction not in the tactical fight, but rather in the strategic fight.
heerobya: "I'd rather they used player skill, but "being the best" isn't good enough for most MMO players, they want others to know they are the best. To see it."
Player skill is the only way to go for PvP. If players want others to see that they are the best, then the game can simply advertise their ranking as the best. It need not involve changing the inherent effectiveness of the player's character. The Uber Master of the game can walk around wearing something that no other player can wear. It doesn't change their character effectiveness, but eveyone understands that he's the top of the heap. Blizzard does this with PvP titles already.
heerobya: "It's an interesting problem, and thus far there has been no solution that everyone can agree on. Probably never will be either, you just have to find a system you like and run with it."
Correct. The goal is not to satisfy everyone. People choose Chess over Checkers, Poker over Bridge, and this over that purely for personal reasons. As a designer, the goal is to come up with formulas that entertain the largest percentage of people.
This is why I have hopes that Raph Koster will be successful with his project. He may empower people to make many different kinds of entertaining environments, letting us find the two or three dozen experiences that people most enjoy. Just as writers say that there are only 40 unique stories to be written, there may only be 40 unique experiences in multiplayer entertainment. For all I know, they're the same sets of 40.
I've always thought that PvE and PvP advancement should be totally seperate.
Levels / combat skills gained through PvE shouldn't apply to PvP and vice versa.
Equipment and items for PvE should be different then PvP equipment and items.
One idea I've though of for balanced, fair, and competitive PvP would be a branching rank system. *Note very generalized*
At rank one, everyone can do one thing - Dish out X amount of damage and be Y effective defensively. Doesn't matter through what means, ranged, magic, guns, melee combat, etc. Everyone is on completely even ground.
Once you rank up through achieving more victories then defeats, you get to Rank 2. You can still do all the Rank 1 stuff just as well as anyone else who is Rank 1, but by becoming Rank 2 you also get the option of being able to buff Z.
And so forth. I know that is very general, but I'm talking about radial progression rather then linear. You never get any better at something, you only gain more somethings to do.
That way the long time player, the achieved veteran has more somethings available to use in their strategy, and a better understanding of how to best use them in combination. However, this veteran can still only do the basic thing, beating someone down for X damage etc. just as well as the newbie 1st day player can.
Know what I mean? I don't want to hijack yoru blog for a full explanation
heerobya: "I've always thought that PvE and PvP advancement should be totally seperate."
You'll get no argument from me. Folks quickly convinced me that trying to serve both masters produces a mess of a system. I don't know that it's particularly useful to have the two forms of entertainment interacting. It's more efficient from the publisher's standpoint, but not from a player's.
heerobya: "Know what I mean? I don't want to hijack yoru blog for a full explanation"
Yes, I understand your meaning. Article time for you, I think :)
JB: "It is the reason that I believe that as soon as someone creates a PvE-only competitor, the Eve Online player base will be rather seriously depleted."
It was called Earth & Beyond and it was a cataclysimic failure. In a recent Gamasutra article the City of Heroes developers lamented they wish they included PVP at launch. Rest assure lesson learned, Champions Online will have PVP at launch in some form
Full PVE based games are even a smaller niche then PVP focused titles. EVE Online has more sub then LOTRO for instance.
Sorry JB, had to correct you on that point :P
"Can this style of PvP have any role in a persistent world? Sure. The persistent world could be fought over by the various PvP factions. Those factions would have to establish rules for encounters, however. I've proposed a system before where a faction can declare that it wants to battle for a certain stretch of ground at a certain time with a certain number of players using certain rules. The faction that controls the adjoining ground can either accept, reject or counter that proposal. If they agree, they can battle it out and hope to win using fair rules."
Being an FPS/MMO/RTS gamer I love the idea of playing on a balanced playing field. But its my love of PVP focused titles (like FPS) that makes me a bit biased in some respects.
When it comes to Guild versus Guild I can see the logic for consentual combat. There is still a certain beauty that exists in games like EVE Online where you can be sieged at anytime without warning. That is more real, more dynamic, and closer to true warfare
Both gamestyles have a place is the bottom line. Guild Wars has its place and EVE Online has its place for persistant battles.
Heerboya: "And so forth. I know that is very general, but I'm talking about radial progression rather then linear. You never get any better at something, you only gain more somethings to do."
Yeah thats how Battlefield 2142 and Call of Duty 4 works (also maybe Planetside). PVPers love linear progression. Guild Wars is pretty much that way for PVPers as well. You can create a max level PVP toon and unlock new skills. All player skill. You're limited to a build though (what I called Static Classes). The builds are great in a way but in some cases could be better if we could at least switch builds inbetween matches. I'm sure they had their reasons though
vajuras: "It was called Earth & Beyond and it was a cataclysimic failure."
Earth & Beyond was simply a bad game that had to compete with the monster of Star Wars: Galaxies.
What I was going after was a World of Warcraft treatment of Elite. The key distinction is whether the core ethic of the game is PvP or PvE. My call for "PvE-only" was admittedly over-the-top. Having arenas and battlegrounds is no problem if the core is PvE.
JB wrote---
"Something that may not be clear up to this point is that each PvP encounter starts from scratch. You may get a great setup during one encounter, but once it is over, you are back to square one. You may have gotten a win out of the last encounter, but it doesn't roll over into the next one."
What I think though your idea is slightly similar to Guild Wars 2. From what I read, pvpers will get all skills, etc and they can play on a balanced playing field in PVP. In PVE, you can level up, etc
It is a partition between PVE/PVP. I'll buy it sure. But I also want to see sandbox, linear MMOS (like WAR, AoC), etc. Basically I want to see all sorts of different flavors.
No way is the best. Guild Wars approach is great for "Game-y" games. EVE Online is great for sandboxy type of games
Everything you've mentioned sounds great and it would fly sure but then you see a game like Starwars Galaxies pre-cu where the different professions were horribly unbalanced and had tons of flaws that gave rise to certain templates. Still the game was massively popular until the changes started taking place. Guild Wars is about as close to what your talking about in a current game as what I can think of as far as being level. Sure you gain more skills through advancement but not necessarily better or more powerful and the 15k armor is for looks only, it isn't better.
You can't sum all the factors up in your words. The fact is there are alot of games out there and the PVP is different. i pvp for fun. Its as simple as that there is PVP without lost also.
JB:
What you describe is very close to being a reality in pseudo-MMO FPS games like Call of Duty 4. Your rank increases as you play more, enabling you to use certain weapons and create custom classes, etc, but in no way does this give you an 'unfair' advantage, like a set of Vengeful Gladiator's armor in WoW.
I think this is a matter of opinion. While many people, myself included, prefer PvP to be an even and balanced encounter not affected greatly by character development, there are the players who put hours and hours into their game of choice and want to be rewarded for their hard work, which is understandable.
I think PvP can be divided into two camps, 'pure' skill-based PvP and accomplishment/character development based PvP. A good analogy would be the F1 racing series compared to the A1GP racing series. A1GP uses identical cars and driver skill si the predominant factor in winning races, where as F1 is based more on car design and development than driver skill.I have to admit that I personally enjoy watching F1 more than A1GP.
I believe that a PvP-orientated MMO should be about character advancement and development, but this should not greatly affect the PvP. For example, your ranks gives you access to areas in the gamer world, and enables you to be competitive against end-game PvE content, while not giving you too many perks in PvP.
a good pvp encounter to me would be a mix of "street fighter" (beat em up game) and "magic the gathering" (trading card game)
street fighter because even tough you can choose between different charackters (classes). each with some similar attacks buta also individual skills. the fight in itselve is about knowing your opponent and executing the right attack/counter at the right time. the experience and skill to win comes from the player himselve not the charakter(level)
magic the gathering because when you play magic there will always be moments where the enemy does something unexpected. combining his cards to a rare combo or bringing that one card that you never seen bevore.
i would rather have an mmo where by playing a lot a diskover rare and unique skills, master a broad varyety of skill, be versatile, become master in many weapons then just deal 30 damage on lvl 10 and 300 damage on lvl 60
It's been mentioned a few times already, but the Guild Wars series does have a variation of card- and chess-type gameplay, while keeping the illusion of achievement intact. Specifically:
Personally, I wouldn't like it if the entire skillset of a game I was playing were served to me in bulk on a silver platter. There needs to remain a sense that you worked (hard or otherwise) to improve your toon. Otherwise, it would just be a game of cards, or chess.
As should have been inherently obvious in my original comment, and has been touched on by several others...
The entire article is about producing a level playing field. A fair fight. I would think that would appeal to anyone.
These games already exist, and did well before Ultima Online. Go play them, or explain what the appeal is. Why would anyone pay $15 a month to do something that they can do and do better for free? What is the advantage of adding Call of Duty to World of Warcraft? Where's the hook?
Personally I would prefer a mix of cards and chess. I love the idea of strategy being implemented into an mmo.
Chess is a very tactical game, knowing when to sacrifice what to get the upper hand. Everyone starts with the same pieces, its all in how you use them.
With cards everyone has the same potential pieces. In the end its a guessing game. You decide if your pieces will triumph over the hands that you do not see.
In the end I prefer the cards analogy with a mix of chess strategy. I guess this is why I still play guildwars. I love the idea of having a pool of powers, then choosing a limited number of them then going into battle. Your choices determines your strengths and weaknesses. Your choices determines what your tactics will be. Sometimes you fight a foe that you are strong against and sometimes you dont. Either way, your strength is not based upon how long that you have played the game. Strength = time is a lousy definition of strength. Strength = Intelligence + skill, is a much better way to define strength in my opinion.
Strength = Intelligence + skill, is a much better way to define strength in my opinion.
But you're not really playing a role-playing game then. You're playing yourself. Sort of like the people who dress up as knights and beat the crap out of eachother with broom sticks in the park, but doing it in a digital costume.
To me it's cool to play a character who grows in experience and power . How cool would the Lord of the Ring be if Pippen could walk up to Sauron and kick his ass in Chapter 1? Not very.
This has been a very good discussion so far, and I think we've touched on what exactly it is that causes so deep an issue with the MMO PvP situation.
All things in life adhere to a singular concept, regardless of what that outlet may be. Advancement and progression. From what I've seen in my years, nearly all things follow that ideal. Sports, jobs, games...you name it. MMO's are probably the largest facet to this gem, because they are designed to mimic real life...to be "virtual worlds".
To be fair, there isn't much you can do to even the playing field without also removing progression. In fact, you shouldn't be trying anyway. The ideal is ludicrous since these games are meant to be virtual worlds. In the real world, people who have been doing something longer than you are often better at it than you. If they lift weights, chances are that a person who has done it for 5 years can lift more than I can. Its not just about skill. These games are about taking a virtual entity and watching it grow...helping it empower itself.
Meh, maybe I'm just thinking too much. I love PvP, but I also wouldn't want to play a game that removed my progression. I already have other gaming genres for that particular form of enjoyment. Fighters and shooters. MMOs are about virtual worlds and growing inside them. I can't be bothered to lose that aspect just for the sake of killing people.
I'll mention Battlefield Europe: WWII Online as a fine example of your thesis. A day one player can join the game and, if skilled enough, beat players with years of time in game. It is a MMOG that is very Chess-like in that various units have differing capabilities. Ones knowledge of those capabilities dramatically enhances your survival rate. For years I found most level-based PvP annoying because it was all about the gear. But with WWII Online, it is 90 percent skill and knowledge.
-Grim
You make zero sense to me. In competition, it always comes down to skill and intelligence.
The "you're playing yourself " comment is kind of inane. Of course I am me. I am me acting like something else, but there will always be me in there.
" To me it's cool to play a character who grows in experience and power "
I have no problem with this quote. My only problem is that there are plenty of games that follow along this basis. Why do you have a problem with some MMORPGS have minor increase in power through leveling up and gear. Why is it such a problem to have a game where a level 50 is very close in power to a level 60. Is it that you require such an advantage?
I simply do not understand why there are people out there that refuse to believe that any other system works other than the one that already exists. Even if you convince these people that their are enough people out there that would enjoy this new system, they still try to poke holes in it simply because they would not like that system.