But yet, it's still scheduling. You've painted it red isntead of a native blue.

Originally posted by pojung

But yet, it's still scheduling. You've painted it red isntead of a native blue.

Yeah. I don't like scheduling in principle. In practice, though, players have shown that they are not wiling or able to provide fair fights at all hours of the day.

It's taking a bad option over a far worse one. What's the alternative - instancing, which most seem to hate (I don't).

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by pojung

But yet, it's still scheduling. You've painted it red isntead of a native blue.

 

Yeah. I don't like scheduling in principle. In practice, though, players have shown that they are not wiling or able to provide fair fights at all hours of the day.

It's taking a bad option over a far worse one. What's the alternative - instancing, which most seem to hate (I don't).

It's a serious conundrum. Scheduling sucks, and is very immersion breaking. We are going to kick your ass! On Thursday, between the hours of 7 and 9 pm. And dont' attack us before then, because you know, we didn't schedule that.

But, without it you get the dedicated guild that will raid your keep at 3 a.m. cause they know you're sleeping.

I think I prefer the 3 a.m. raid. The trick is to make it so the other side isn't devastated enough to quit when this happens, like it has to go in stages and you can't just take out everything at once.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by pojung

But yet, it's still scheduling. You've painted it red isntead of a native blue.

 

Yeah. I don't like scheduling in principle. In practice, though, players have shown that they are not wiling or able to provide fair fights at all hours of the day.

It's taking a bad option over a far worse one. What's the alternative - instancing, which most seem to hate (I don't).

 

It's a serious conundrum. Scheduling sucks, and is very immersion breaking. We are going to kick your ass! On Thursday, between the hours of 7 and 9 pm. And dont' attack us before then, because you know, we didn't schedule that.

But, without it you get the dedicated guild that will raid your keep at 3 a.m. cause they know you're sleeping.

I think I prefer the 3 a.m. raid. The trick is to make it so the other side isn't devastated enough to quit when this happens, like it has to go in stages and you can't just take out everything at once.

Sort of like how EVE does it.   You can attack player owned stations at any time, but if they've made the proper arrangements you will only be able to put it into reinforced mode which then makes station invunerable for a set period of time.

Gives the enemy about a day to prepare their defenses, however they are not allowed to beef up the station during this time other than to repair the shield.

The only thing I can think of is a 'stage based' concept where territorial targets are only accessible provided others are owned or not. You attack locations in stages.

Keep_B's and Keep_C's vulnerability hinges on Keep_A being contested. If Keep_A is owned, the owning faction runs no risk of losing Keep_B or Keep_C (and the crafting/questing/etc benefits from owning said keep). The issue here is that you now have instituted a 'front line' to your overall war, which prevents a 'drop behind enemy lines' (a la Airborne WWII tactics) strategic approach. There's strategy involved, and you can know at a glance where the action will be taking place, but the 'when' is in flux.

I don't know. You make locality, geography, the contraint in this system, rather than time. It brings us back to a simple equation of time vs. space. How the 2 are interconnected.

Perhaps this system would have merits? Would need a way to make the 'front lines' not the only way of waging war.

Edit: Instanced war? Oh hell no. While there is a place for it, it's clearly 'put into a box'. I'm discussing more along the lines of world PvP (being meaningful). While there are ways to establish meaning to isntanced PvP (and I love me some AB long time), it's lacking a macro-dynamic nature.

pojung the system you describe was used in Planetside.

It worked quite well, though some players are searching for a game where exciting things happen on a more rare basis (ie where the territory you claimed in your 2-3 hours of play can't be reclaimed 2-3 hours after you log off; which is a slightly unreasonable demand.)

Ironically Planetside also had "instanced war".  The instances were 200 players a side (potentially 600 players) but it was that very cap which made player decisions important (because you were winning/losing because of skill and strategy rather than because you outnumbered or outgeared the enemy.)  You might split your forces, and your 40 guys attacking base A might be outnumbered in that particular battle, but that was because you had 160 players at Base B where you almost certainly outnumbered the enemy .

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Taking items is meaningless, mostly just ads fun for griefers.

In general I agree.  However, I did like the idea of item drops in pvp (not from the player) in WAR.  It shouldn't happen all the time, but if you kill a badass I think that having a one in a million shot of "looting" a super rare item (again, not from the inventory of the player you killed) could add good value to the pvp scene.

Originally posted by demarc01

Originally posted by pojung

Hrmm. Interesting point. How could it be resolved though?

A timer on land control does result in more spectacular battle, but linearizes PvP. You 'schedule' PvP. Is there a way to provide constant access with spectacular battles at *random* times?

 

Yes there is. Age of Conan tries to do just that.

You own a keep ... you can set the time frame that its open for attack. The wider window you set the better the bonuses for control you get. The narrower the window gives reduced bonuses.

In this way you funnel PvP into a time slot determined by the players .. the other players know the time slot that its open and can make attack plans accordingly.

Of course some guilds will set a pure say, 2hour window, and for those 2 hours go "defend" incase someone attacks. Other guilds will set wider windows and set "scouts" to watch for attackers. Its an interesting system although I really did'ent get much exposure to it (Seiges crashed hardcore when I played) it does seem to address some of the issues your bringing up.

It allows for funneled battles within given time frames .. but gives the players the ability to determine and alter these timeframes in order to gain larger rewards. A great risk Vs Reward system.

Of course there are other issues with AoCs seige warfare that I did'ent care for (Attack and defender population caps) etc .. but its kinda what your looking for I think.

The thing that turned me off about AOC was that it was just a battle for a guild hall.  I want to see battles for resources.  E.g. you scan for resources, find a good concentration, test out the resource, find it has great stats, and start the process of controlling the resource.  First you setup mining operations, then you setup your fort.  From there you enhance the fort's defensive capabilities (depending on how really great or not so great that resource is), and defend the resource until the resource cycle is complete.  During that cycle, other guilds would want that same resource, and they would have to fight your guild for control of the resource.  As others have discussed there are a lot of different ways to do this, so I won't get into that.  

Anyways, the point is that resources make it dynamic, which greatly increases the player economy (particularly as far as structures are concerned).  You don't just buy one guild keep.  You have to keep buying fort structures to protect the resources you want to control.  The better the resources, the more you want to invest in protection structures.  Then you'd make enough from the resource to get even better defensive structures and wait for the next resource to control.  All together this adds up to dynamic gameplay with depth, and keeps the economy rolling. (economy to me is really what makes a mmo a mmo)

I'm not much of a pvp'er but the important part of PvP for me is the contribution it makes to the community dynamic.  A game where ALL the players are on the same side? Bleah!  If you're making a game in a persistent world context that has combat but you don't let the players fight, is just too artificially contrived for me to feel right. PvP adds a thrill, sense of danger and meaning just by existing. It doesn't necessarily have to have a need beyond that though nice if it does and implemented properly.

I'd say #1 would be PvP that helps all characters within one's faction. Such as a boost to stats or something, when a given PvP-based objective is accomplished - and lost when another side takes that objective for themselves. i.e. community rewards.

Second to that, just a PvP based individual progression system, where players make some sort of progress via PvP. Like leveling, or skill points, only in much smaller steps than what levels usually indicate. i.e. individual rewards.

Both of these work best in a PvP system that's more about territory and group-based objectives, rather than just running around ganking people.

---

Originally posted by Aemi
PvP would be more fun if it was like in .hack
No limits on it and anyone could do what they wanted within the game.

---

That's how it was in the beginning <cue veterans nostalgic for old-time UO and EQ pre-Trammel>. They stopped doing it because it doesn't work.

---

This would develop more of a community for it and you could actually be good or evil. It wouldn't just be mindless attacking of eachother.

---

Actually, yes, it would be. It was. We've already been there and that's what happens.

Originally posted by tro44_1

PvP has Lore sometimes. Look at WoW's Battle Grounds

 

Yes it does BUT theres too many in wow that suck at pvp and cry all day long about it.

 Battles versus real players are way more interesting than vs scripted stuff.

PvP has a purpose in Darkfall.

If someone pisses you off, you can kill them.

You can kill and take everything on a person.

You can conquer a city or hamlet.

You can exert control over an area to control access to mob spawns.

One character, so reputation is important.

So I can confidently say that PvP has purpose in Darkfall.  What about your game?

Originally posted by Tyrantas

 Battles versus real players are way more interesting than vs scripted stuff.

Ideally yes, but I see lots of people in PvP as dumb as the typical AI mob.

Originally posted by Ruyn

PvP has a purpose in Darkfall.

If someone pisses you off, you can kill them.

You can kill and take everything on a person.

You can conquer a city or hamlet.

You can exert control over an area to control access to mob spawns.

One character, so reputation is important.

 

So I can confidently say that PvP has purpose in Darkfall.  What about your game?

But it's a pain for me to play that game :|

 I want to develop my character via PVP like say you kill someone then you get skill unlocks and stuff like the SWG Jedi Force Ranks but if you're killed then you lose XP and lose skills. So it's something that once you get the rank you wont always keep it because you might get killed by a better player who takes the rank off you.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Tyrantas

 Battles versus real players are way more interesting than vs scripted stuff.

Ideally yes, but I see lots of people in PvP as dumb as the typical AI mob.

Yeah gotta agree here ^^, but still if u are one of the best u mostly fight along/vs the best ppl, and anyway those mobs aka players ar still more enjoyable to kill than a simple mob since u have in mind that it's a player.

Originally posted by Axehilt

The issue is a bit more complicated, as you basically have two groups of players:

• Those who feel the "meaning" of PVP is in capturing territory, resources, or items.
• Those who feel "meaning" is making decisions that matter during the fight.

They're separate groups because thus far few games have mixed the elements well.

So you're saying that for some people, the reason they are fighting is so they can make decisions about the fight?

I don't follow.

There are two types of PvP in MMOs, which are separated by the effects. 

The first type of PvP is conflict, and deals with an outcome that has an effect on the gameworld. Two sides confliciting over possession of land or resources fits in this category, as it has a lasting impact on the game. In this example, PvP is the means of conflict resolution and is used as a tool. This type is essentially Warfare.

In the second type, PvP isn't the means, it's the whole point. Dueling and arenas fit here because there is no conflict to be resolved (and therefore no argument of possession). The incentive is usually competition and can be ranking, leader boards, items, points, or just plain fun.

What someone means when they say that "PvP has purpose", it depends because meaning is relative. "Purpose" most likely means some material entity, whether it be an item, access to resources, or land, rather than some achievement or ranking.

The first type of PvP (warfare), seems way more interesting if you ask me.

Capturing territory is a big one for me.