Originally posted by daelnor

Originally posted by Gyrus

...

Yes, it's an RvR 'race'.  Which is (technically) still "RvR" isn't it?

It may be a trite example... but I think I have shown that you could have 'RvR' without PvP.  Yeah, the RvR players would hate it... but that's not the point is it?

 

Sounds like a japanese game show :c)

I get your point though.  So what about a PvP game that wasn't faction based RvR type? What would make one of those not suck?  I believe there is HUGE demand for these games..but somehow devs keep dropping the ball on it.  It's either to mini-game ish...or too free for all with no pve content

Yes, because it is difficult to balance since human nature is to 'gang up' - which leads to zergs.

Other than that... getting too close to my possible solution - so I wont say to much more.  My idea (if it works) is worth big $$$ to the MMO business.  Sorry.

Originally posted by Axehilt

 

Any examples of games where player politics and clan/clan fights were particularly good?

While I dig politics in games, I haven't seen a game with particularly freeform player factions.

Maybe Shadowbane had freeform player factions?  I lost interest so quick I never reached those rumored good parts of the game.  Reminded me of L2 - a game who supposedly has alright PVP but whose designers insanely decided to hide it behind the worst PVE they could create.

Eve online has this. Although it is mind numbingly dull a lot of the time. And it will take you a good while to get competitive skills and make friends enough to play the political game. People are kinda slow to trust in that game... with good reason.

Originally posted by Quirhid

WARs problems were numerous. One of those was that skills weren't balanced in either PvP or RvR despite the dev team's efforts to balance them for both. I like skills to have a heavy impact in PvP but at the same time it is a very slippery road when tried in RvR. WAR remains my sole experience of RvR (other than the short visit to the lagfest of Planetside full of spawn camp and exploitation), but I can't see a solution to have good RvR and good PvP in the same game other than having different skills for both.

WAR's skills were frustratingly shallow.

Imagine a game where you're a firefighter spraying a DPS hose at things.  Except instead of the hose always being on you have to hit the same repetitive button sequence: 1,2,3 - 1,2,3 - 1,2,3.  That's WAR's 1v1 combat.  A dire shortage of interesting player states, and nearly zero reactionary abilities.  In a game designed for PVP, all players get are DPS or HPS hoses?  Madness.

Then you had AOE moves which were basically spammable and did 80-100% of the damage of normal moves.  So if two enemies are remotely nearby all you do is spam AOE.

Then you had CC effects which were far too frequent, far too long in duration, and far too many of which were AOE.  And rather than tone that down their solution is to have them not work half the time (due to triggering a long CC immunity anytime someone's hit by CC.)

To some degree I agree with you, and that if you want combat which is responsive, deep, and engaging you should never have teams of more than 15 players engaging one another at any given time.

But on the other hand, some games can get away with completely arbitrary limitations on engagement.  Puzzle Pirates simply limits how many targets can simultaneously attack a given enemy (though its combat system is drastically different.)  In Rise of Nations (RTS) units did less damage for each unit that was also attacking that target.

None of that makes any sense.  Why would units do less damage when focus firing?  The answer is yes, it's completely arbitrary.  But it worked, and solved the problem the designers were trying to solve.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by tvalentine

RvR kinda sucks imo. I would perfer a more open world where people make their own decisions on who their enemies are. Adding politics and guildvsguild or clanvsclan wars adds much more depth then a RvR war that never ends.

 

Any examples of games where player politics and clan/clan fights were particularly good?

While I dig politics in games, I haven't seen a game with particularly freeform player factions.

Maybe Shadowbane had freeform player factions?  I lost interest so quick I never reached those rumored good parts of the game.  Reminded me of L2 - a game who supposedly has alright PVP but whose designers insanely decided to hide it behind the worst PVE they could create.

You missed the Shadowbane lore servers. By limiting which race and class combinations could be in which types of guilds they created a pseudo RvR clan based environment that did much to mitigate the zergs. There were seventeen factions. Not being written that way from the ground up it had balacce issues but you could see where it was going. Also it's not so much they hid the PvP behind the PvE but more there wasn't any, nor any need for it. You could hit top level in a couple of days towards the end.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Apparently GW actually gives you health regen for each person attacking the same target.

I see, and agree to some extent with your point, but this fact about GW is false.

I too want the skills to be deep but I also want them to have a major effect without imbalancing the combat. Interruptions, knockdowns, snares, roots, curses, blessings and all different effects, in chain, drain, explode, aoe, contact, constant, on hit, being hit, while doing something else, shapes of effects and type all add to the depth of combat. I only want to see them also change the attacker's or the defender's approach while in the midst of combat.

It is a difficult thing to explain, alteast for me. But one might get the idea when he compares the old Baldur's Gate 2 with the MMOs today. In BG, like in GW, enchantments had short durations but they really had an impact so you wanted to remove them or prevent the enemy from using them. I find this trend of having unremovable buffs that last from 5-120min rather boring and they make the game poor combat-wise.

In short: The depth of skills is not entirely the same thing as the effects of skills combat-wise. Atleast in my book.

Originally posted by daelnor

What I think people are missing by my population balance statements:

Did DAOC have balance issues?  Of course.  Did WAR have balance issues? yeah.  Does WoW have balance issues? Yup.

Here's the problem though...DAOC had three realms..and still had balance issues.  Why was this?  There are probably a lot of reasons..but the glaring ones I saw were that each realm had different mechanics with the classes and their inter relationship with each other.

I.E. Midgard had instant AOE stuns, Albion had hella long range mezzes, hibs had bard insta mezz.   Through various nerfs and buffs, Mythic constantly gave one realm glaring advantages/disadvantages over the others...which brought people by the dozens to certain servers.

I say have an odd number of sides..but give all sides the same abilities and combinations of classes, etc.  You will naturally have one side with more people than the other, but it would be easier to entice people to switch, or come to a realm from a different server if play on each side was essentially the same, with some cosmetic differences.

People are now going to say...but this is what happened in WoW and there are still imbalances.   This is true..but they only have two factions..there is no third faction to team up with the under dog and take the big guy out.

Is that a perfect system? Not at all.  Can it work? Yeah.

Of course, this only applies if you are talking about a game with factions.  You could also do it with a more free style sandbox game where its not faction vs. faction as much as guild vs. guild.  The problem with that is how do you keep some monster chinese guild from dominating the entire world like happened in the late days of shadowbane?

Also, how do you make the game interesting long term? Everyone gets bored of random gank fests and no real pve content in those types of games.

I never really had a problem with interrealm class balance in DAoC until they started messing with it. In the end they had ruinined a lot of the diversity by making most speclines pointless and they had added new classes that supposedly fixed old classes that had been nerfed so much they were unfixable. Biggest balancing issue I had was new classes compared to old ones. Hate how they nerfed my zerker and then nerfed him again and then forgot about the class and made a new one, savage, that did the berserkers job only better and without any drawbacks.

But I wasnt really too jealous of the berserkers counterparts from the other realms as they didnt have the same role to fill in a group. Sure there were some skills that were a little too easier to use or had a sligthly bigger effect when compared across realms, but the only problem I had when some other class from my realm took my place in a group.

In my oppinion it wasnt the numerical imbalance that was the problem in DAoC. Or the differences in classes between the realms. Atleast thats not why I stopped playing. I mainly got fed up with the gear being too much a part of the game and also most of the people I knew had stopped playing.

 But I do realize if the factions have differences either in numbers of abilites of the classes/races people tend to point to that even if its hard to prove if they are to blame. It is dificult if not impossible to balance and even more so to see that it is balanced. It is however very easy to see that someone else has a nice toy and forget that you actually have pretty nice toys too.

But ofcourse that only applies after people have picked their side/race/class/build or after stuff has beed added/changed/removed in the game.

From the start, people will either pick based on lore or looks or from a powergamer perspective so they can min/max the stats or pick a short character that can hide in the grass and based on what they think of the skills set of a given class.

Personally I hate setting stats from the start.. and I hate having to make a choice that I can never undo. Especially since that choice might have been a good one in the beginning, but has suddenly been made the worst choice because of a game change that was out of my hands.

Also Im kinda fed up with having to play classes. Its often  a problem to find a healer or a buffer or a tank, or even dps with half a brain. Wouldnt mind a fantasy themed game where I could switch gear or memorize spells to fit the circumstances. Although I dont think it should be the norm for mmos to come. :P

Think Im getting of the point. But it seems to me that if there is any difference between characters, there are some that are going to think that its unbalanced. Atleast if you have reason to compare them.

Either everyone has access to the same and it all comes out to how well you play. Or you could have 3 basic classes; healer, tank, and dps. with noone stepping on anyones toes. Atleast as long as they are in a group. Cause I know someone will point out that their healer cant solo or whatever.  Or we do allow for diversity but make sure that it wont become a major issue.

How can we make sure that diversity wont become an issue? Well 3rd side wild card would do it for RvR. And as far as everyone being welcome? I think it would be a good idea either to have as little diversity as possible or an insane amount of diversity. Either 4 different classes or 100 different classes. And I think we all know which of those is the easier to balance.

Personally, I hate the fact that devs try to give everyone everything.

"gimp the tanks cause my mage can't kill them at point blank range"

"gimp the ranged guys cause my melee guy gets mowed down before I can reach them"

This is slowly strangling the life out of MMO's, IMHO.

I think a mage/ranger should devastate a melee guy at range.  I think if a melee guy beats a mage in the face with a huge hammer...the mage should be going down hard for a dirt nap.

I don't like crowd control.  I like area control though.  Why mezz a bunch of people, or knock them back 200 yards.

Why not be able to drop a wall of fire somewhere, and make people run around it...why not drop a patch of ice to make people slip and slide.  Why not make it effect everyone who is dumb enough to run into it.

How about making tanks able to make a shield wall...groups of archers able to volley...but make that volley hit everyone, so there has to be strategy to use it.

Those kinds of things could make large scale fights more interesting.

I still believe that DAOC hit the PvP/RvR goldmine nearly by accident ...by moving away from the 2 side system (good vs evil, light vs dark etc) to a multiple side system where there wasnt a true protagonist/antagonist.

Having a 3rd side changes everything with brief alliances between sides to always watching your back and having to change your tactics.

WAR needs a 3rd side.

Die Hibbies!

For meaningful RvR you need dynamic rewards, and a very well thought out combat mechanic. RvR thrives on bonuses that are not only very useful, but also easily taken if not defended. WAR has a very watered down version of this, and thus it doesn't 'feel' as important to capture objectives, etc.

Another thing that RvR needs, that WAR dropped the ball on was siege equipment. Keeps need GOOD siege equipment and sieging should help turn the tide of a battle, not be a small neusance for the healers. Launching cannons into a crowd should HURT, and launching them at a keep should hurt equally as much. They shouldn't be able to be ignored, they should be an integral part of a siege.

Simply put you need to have a good degree of balance / rewards, but also abilities that (when used properly) can help smaller forces win against unthinkable odds. Sounds counter intuitive, but it's what leads to interesting, engaging, and fun RvR. The third realm helps, but you need the above first before you can even think about adding one.

 What DOESN'T work:

- only 2 sides (population balance nightmare);

- WoW/EQ style combat with autoattack (again, a PvE thing which doesn't belong in PvP)

- short fights (no sense of strategy when fights only last a few seconds)

- healers (they might make sense in long PvE boss fights... but healers as they are presented in modern - instant healers - MMORPGs should not exist)

- different classes on each side (class-balance nightmare);

- equipment giving big boosts (makes PvE too important);

- PvE objectives involving AI-controlled characters within a RvR area (the goal is to have players fighting other players, not AI);

 - allowing infinite number of players in a specific area when current/game technology cannot handle it (produces lag > angers players > fail)

- allowing high lvl players to battle low level ones (which is only a PK dream)

- this only apply to WoW Battlegrounds: allowing less than a full group to battle each others in an instanced scenario;

WAR developpers tought that players Wanted WoW-style PvE with PvE-style RvR, and equipment rewards.

Wrong, they wanted to rip each others out in a wargame-style RPG.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Axehilt

Apparently GW actually gives you health regen for each person attacking the same target.

 

I see, and agree to some extent with your point, but this fact about GW is false.

 I too want the skills to be deep but I also want them to have a major effect without imbalancing the combat. Interruptions, knockdowns, snares, roots, curses, blessings and all different effects, in chain, drain, explode, aoe, contact, constant, on hit, being hit, while doing something else, shapes of effects and type all add to the depth of combat. I only want to see them also change the attacker's or the defender's approach while in the midst of combat.

It is a difficult thing to explain, alteast for me. But one might get the idea when he compares the old Baldur's Gate 2 with the MMOs today. In BG, like in GW, enchantments had short durations but they really had an impact so you wanted to remove them or prevent the enemy from using them. I find this trend of having unremovable buffs that last from 5-120min rather boring and they make the game poor combat-wise.

In short: The depth of skills is not entirely the same thing as the effects of skills combat-wise. Atleast in my book.

Thanks for pointing out the GW thing.  Out of curiosity, is there an anti-spike damage mechanic in Guild Wars?  I swear I heard someone say it had something, but apparently I either heard wrong or the person was wrong.

The part where you say you want the attacker or defender to change their approach in the middle of combat is one of the main parts of deep combat.

Even in deep games, your opening set of moves might always be the same (or might vary only by the class of your opponent.)  Like famous openings in Chess.  Whereas in shallow games the entire battle is the same repetitive series of abilities.  Like the WAR example: 1,2,3-1,2,3-1,2,3-until the opponent dies.

You mention mostly the good CC abilities; the ones that only partially disable characters.  I definitely agree with that, as it means the victim still has options - he/she still has decisions they can make.  Completely reducing a player's available decisions to zero (aka: stun) should be very rare, if it exists at all.

The long-duration buffs, at least in WOW, and up being class flavoring more than anything:  "Having a mage in your party makes everyone smarter" is a perfectly fine thing to have in a game, especially if each class brings their own unique buffs.  It might add a little depth to class composition choices, but you're right -- it doesn't really make combat itself deeper.

DAOC works for RvR, it was one of a kind and near perfect.  They made tons of mistakes but they also corrected tons of mistakes back in the days.  But all in all, DAOC should be what a company should look at if they want to know how to do RvR right.

WAR's problem is that it simply wasn't good enough RvR-wise to cater to the RvR crowd, the ex-DAOC players.  At the same time, it isn't good enough PvE-wise to cater to the PvE-preferred crowd from many other games.  In their effort to try to cater to more players, they've lost a lot more from both sides.

I'm not gonna rehash a lot of what has been said about what works and what doesn't in RvR.  But all in all, Mythic should've created a DAOC 2, it would've been a hit for much longer than WAR's hype.  What worked for DAOC?  3 realms, realm abilities, RvR siege, open roaming RvR, relic raid system, darkness fall, positional/chained melee combat, stealth classes, speed classes, thidranki battlegrounds, useful crafting.

DAOC works, WAR doesn't. I think that answers your question. If you want to go with why, the answer is simple - WoW.

This isn't a complaint about the game, but against what it has done to the industry. In order to be considered a success, you need to have far more subscribers that you used to. You also know that the quickest way to get massive amounts of players is to take them from WoW.

DAOC looked at EQ and then added a lot of original ideas. It fixed what was wrong with EQ in terms of PvE and then added RvR to the genre. WAR took WoW as a base with the goal of trying to appeal to some imaginary DAOC type of RvR player. The result is that it disapoints the RvR player. The WoW player sees it as either worse than WoW, or not better. Either way, they are better off going back to WoW.

In order to have a successful and good RvR game, you need a small company that is happy with 100k players. This way you can develop a great game to fit a specific niche of gamers. Trying to be a large game means you have to reduce yourself to just being a WoW copy in too many ways and that is not good for game design or long term subscription numbers.

Here is what works

Balance everyone totally by doing away with levels and loot other than cosmetic loot. Make sure noone needs to group and can fight whever they want

Rename it a ...First Person Shooting game ...

congrats you have the pvp you guys want. Noone can complain now when you beat them i duels or otherwise.!

If you do actually want an MMO, I am only in favoure of RvR of the kind DOAC had in optional middle grounds with rewards for getting to them Ie the raid areas for example....that would work given most heading to a raid would amass the numbers needed for a battle first. 

Originally posted by PharaDar

Here is what works

Balance everyone totally by doing away with levels and loot other than cosmetic loot. Make sure noone needs to group and can fight whever they want

Rename it a ...First Person Shooting game ...

congrats you have the pvp you guys want. Noone can complain now when you beat them i duels or otherwise.!

...

Done.

It's called WWIIoL. 

What makes me laugh is that despite being exactly the game many people claim they want - it's too hardcore and too tough for most people.

It is also RvR and has a side balance feature in place.  Not a perfect side balance feature by any means - but a step in the right direction.

Hey, don't use the term RvR unless you speak about Warhammer Online.

Some moron allowed them to copyright the term RvR, so any other game cannot use RvR.

:P

Originally posted by wolfmann

Hey, don't use the term RvR unless you speak about Warhammer Online.

Some moron allowed them to copyright the term RvR, so any other game cannot use RvR.

 

:P

RvR.

Link them too my post.  They can sue my hairy arse.  I have never owned a MMORPG Dev Company but would really like to - so bring it on.  :-D

I wouldn't even link RvR with WAR.  Their version is dissapointing.  DAOC had RvR.

Something else I thought of in this post.  More of a comparison of DAOC vs. WAR than anything directly RvR related.

Something irked me about WAR's controls, and I never realized what it was until I got into a fight with a Knight of the Blazing Sun while on my Disciple of Khaine.

The friggin fight lasted for like 2 minutes.  That isn't what bothered me though...it was the 1,2,3,4...run back a bit, heal, 1,2,3,4..rinse repeat.

It was hella boring.  I remember thinking...why didn't I feel this irritation in DAOC?

I remember people complaining, before WAR came out about how "clunky" DAOC's interface was.  I don't remember feeling that when playin DAOC...hmmm.

Now I realize what was bugging me.  Likely most of the people complaining about the clunky interface of DAOC didn't understand the beauty of it.  Would I want to see it recreated exactly like it was? No.  But I'd love something similar.

There weren't any brainless global cooldowns ala WoW.  But that isn't what made it cool.  What made it cool was reactionary styles, positionals...being able to queue up moves.....i.e.   you hit your parry reactional, but you could also hit your anytime style immediately after.  What this did was beautiful.   If you parried...you would use the parry style.  If you didn't parry, it would move onto the anytime style.  Whichever style actually hit, then you'd move into the style chain for either the parry style or the anytime style.

So you didn't really have 1,2,3,4 repeat...it was varied up a lot and you had to pay attention. Is this a perfect system? Not at all...but it beats the hell out of the evolutionary step backwards they took with WAR.

I'd like to see systems based on more real time decisions.  I.E.  Not...my armor factor of 13213124135435 means you can't hit me...but more of....I actively blocked your attack, then counter attacked.  It doesn't need to be horribly complicated...but yeah...1,2,3,4 is pretty lame.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Thanks for pointing out the GW thing.  Out of curiosity, is there an anti-spike damage mechanic in Guild Wars?  I swear I heard someone say it had something, but apparently I either heard wrong or the person was wrong.

The part where you say you want the attacker or defender to change their approach in the middle of combat is one of the main parts of deep combat.

Even in deep games, your opening set of moves might always be the same (or might vary only by the class of your opponent.)  Like famous openings in Chess.  Whereas in shallow games the entire battle is the same repetitive series of abilities.  Like the WAR example: 1,2,3-1,2,3-1,2,3-until the opponent dies.

You mention mostly the good CC abilities; the ones that only partially disable characters.  I definitely agree with that, as it means the victim still has options - he/she still has decisions they can make.  Completely reducing a player's available decisions to zero (aka: stun) should be very rare, if it exists at all.

The long-duration buffs, at least in WOW, and up being class flavoring more than anything:  "Having a mage in your party makes everyone smarter" is a perfectly fine thing to have in a game, especially if each class brings their own unique buffs.  It might add a little depth to class composition choices, but you're right -- it doesn't really make combat itself deeper.

Not to get too off-topic, but allow me to answer some of your questions:

Yes, Guild Wars did have anti-spiking mechanics. Short term buffs / enchantments which blocked / dodged 50%+ of attacks, or bonds which prevent a character from taking more than 5-10% damage from any 1 attack, etc. All did a lot to counter spikes. Of course these defenses were never fool-proof, and a decent team could find a way around them by breaking the enchantments or trying different methods of attack.

GW being mentioned was a great example btw (I know people either love or hate this game, but anyway), when he mentioned players changing their approach to combat, guild wars most definitely had this. You had certain builds which revolved around 1-2 tricks, and others that required a coordinated group to pull off, but could change tactics at will. Players would mix up damage, CC, support, and utility to allow versatility to counter different situations. Encounter someone who's trying to spike? have everyone start using their support skills while you focus fire the spiker. Have a group who's heavy on defenses? Use your CC and utility to limit their defenses while you pressure / spike them down. Etc.

It does add a lot of depth to combat, even if players didn't all like the system.

As for CC, I think GW handled this fairly well also. I.E. A well played mesmer could almost completely shut down most players, but they had to be very skilled, and spend most of their energy into shutting down that player (at the cost of being able to really harm anyone else). This was about as much CC as any 1 player could have in the game, and the price was fair. Most other games allow too much leeway when it comes to CC, and thus run into the problem of making it too easy, too shallow, or too overpowered. There is rarely much dynamics when it comes to CC. It's almost always root / snare / stun / disable. Unlike with GW when it's a lot of partials (disable x type of magic, or if target casts in y seconds all similar attacks fail, etc.) most modern MMOs tend to do the vanilla all inclusive CC setup (roots are all treated the same, as are snares / stuns / etc.)

***********

Here's the interesting thing though (and this is where my post ties back into the main topic). All the depth in the world for a combat system means very little when it comes to RvR, unless you achieve a delicate paradox in your RvR system:

- You need to have an active enough RvR system, where the action never feels stale, and it feels like a 'real war'. However,

- You also need to spread the population out enough, where it often turns into a bunch of smaller fights that make up a much larger battle. Instead of funneling everything into one big cluster*@&%@, which results in huge lag, and ultimately players having to rely on only a select few skills over and over again, rather than mixing it up and strategizing. When you are lagging so bad that you can only get off 1 skill every 5-10seconds, all strategic approaches to combat get thrown out the window, and it turns into one big button mashing spree.

What this means is, you need your objectives to be close, but not too close, and you need incentives for capturing multiple objectives at the same time. You also need maps that are large, but segmented. For example, forts should have pleanty of corridors, stairs, and entrances to choose from, which give lots of options for engaging, but aren't suitable for large rushes necessarily. This forces the battle to spread out, which results in less lag, and more opportunities for dynamic combat.

RVR has many problems. But we get a game style we don't get in a solo game. Thats what I expect from online games, something that uses the fact we are all online together.

So it gets my thumbs up!