Developers Corner

 

On a theoretical level, I do not understand why other people believe player vs. player content in computer games is bad. 

Please leave past game experiences out of this discussion.

Currently, in computer games the best form of inteligent competition is against other players.  From a sporting perspective I want to compete against a formidable opponent that pushes me to better myself.  In sports many machines are used to train a player, but the end goal of the training is to raise your skill to compete against another player.  In tennis they have ball serving machines.  In baseball they have batting cages.  Bowling has bumperball. (j.k. just seeing if you are paying attention)  In sports it is not offensive at all to compete against other players.  It would be a boring world if people did not have a competative spirit.  I see competition as a form of entertainment.

Why then does the online game community have such an aversion to player versus player content in computer games?  

The answer is simple.  Most games, no matter what other content they have, are based on grinding up the level treadmill.  This is the only goal and the only action.  Actually doing it is, in the end, not really what matters to the players.  It is getting 'to the top.'  Any set back or action that detracts from this (ie. getting PKed, loosing your stuff, having someone steal your drop, etc.) makes people mad because all the actions they do in the game consume their time and they want their reward.   Because of this we see arbitrary systems to regulate drops, instanced dungeons, PvP consent or special zones, etc.   In other words these games are designed based on single player mechanics which don't really work with tons of people playing.  So they revise and make things more and more like a single player or cooperative multi-player game, but not a massively multiplayer online role playing game where you could BE and DO anything you wanted in a WORLD and your actions and interactions one with another would SHAPE that world.

If for once the game wasn't about grinding up the level treadmill and the world were totally player driven, then sure everyone would welcome PvP and all that comes with it.  Otherwise there would be nothing else to do.  And believe me, if for once a game tapped the vast unmet potential of putting the interactions of thousands of individuals to work in driving the game forward, there would be no shortage of things to do.

also, remember that most game players, at least the new ones coming realizing the MMO universe have never heard of pvp, the closest thing they have had to pvp is FPS pvp, hopefully as people begin to see the potential, companies will begin to do what was described by the post before me.   Maybe someday lvl'ing will stop being a grind and players will be able to do anything(age appropriate) as MMO's were once described as.

State of todays MMORPGs:
Most players out there just want to play a game for fun, no competition, no risks involved and surely not something hard. Just imagine a player wanting to go out with friends and play a little of this and that just for a bit of fun and relaxation. (PvE-Players)
PvPers on the other hand are out for competition, want to be the better player and live wth "risk = reward". This fraction is a LOT smaller than the casual player group so companys tend to ignore them or try to put up some alternative PvP system to attract them. The money simply lies with the PvE-Players that want to play a cooperative MMORPG against the NPC-Environment and be a hero of sorts. To hold them in the game timesinks are implemented in various ways (grinding, leveling, items etc) and ever now and then new NPC content is introduced.

The online gaming community consists of 80% PvE-Players so their opinions count the most for companys. Their main reasons against PvPing are:

1. Bad community: PvPers are not friendly and just want you dead. They want your loot, speak in leet-speak, play 24/7 and are mostly morons and lamers. The point is that PvP games tend to attract a lot of bad, immature, insulting players. Noone really wants that.

2. Scared of PvP: A lot of players are under-confident and do not believe that they could survive in such a world. So why play a game where all of your wealth can be stripped off you the moment you step into more dangerous areas? Most non-PvPers compare PvP-Areas to a black hole. You move there and you and everything you possess gets sucked away by those immature, insulting children. So why play such a game?

3. No time: to be successful you have to invest time in strategy, character buildup and "player skill". A lot of people do not have this time. PvPing is considered a hardcore play style.

4. No interest: Just interested in a cooperative game, or a glorified chat room (ie not hardcore).

I am sure there are a lot more reasons out there.

lets not get hasty and say that all pvp'ers are lamers, and two i agree with your point about pvp really not having actual skill, it needs time and clicking ability, but nothig besides that

Now I see here that often made mistake of thinking that PvP means combat and killing other players.  There is a VAST variety of untapped PvP potential.  I don't want PvP so that I can fight other players (most games have an arena or PvP area for that anyway).  I want PvP so that I can for once INTERACT with other players in a meaningful way that shapes the game world.  PvP includes merchants making deals and getting trade alliances.  Political organizations that elect officials.  Towns and City states competing for resources.  Racing to claim new land or to prospecting to find  a new mining location and establish a prosperous trading post.  Even organized sports and competitions within the game world.  

Furthermore a game doesn't have to be designed around time consuming leveling to offer this kind of player vs player interaction.  Don't confuse PvP with PK.  Real PvP based on true interaction between players will take a great amount of actual skill.  Players will have to assess a constantly changing complex situation and make strategic decisions based on the information at hand.  It really would create a much more interesting environment that would have something for everyone.  Just because the current mmo market caters to PvE (mostly because it is easier and cheaper to design) doesn't mean that there isn't a vast potential market for a more interactive type of game.  With the genre becoming stagnant with so many copy-cat games it may well need to move in this direction very soon.

yes this last post is genius!, that rings such a bell with me, i reallllllyyyyy hope that someday games, especially online ones, will be more like what was described

I think a real issue with PvP is that most casual players' experiences of PvP tend to be negative, rather than positive.  This tends to mean that whenever anyone is discussing PvP, there are more negative examples than positive ones available, meaning that by experience more people are likely to say it is a bad thing rather than good, simply because limited experiences with PvP will tend to be negative.  That will immediately tend to bias any discussion of PvP to "bad".

Without an example it's hard to explain what I mean by those terms, so my appologies for using an example.  In SW:G shortly after release, various active members of the community led large raids, with dozens of NPC stormtrooper cannon fodder included for the other side to play with.  They invited anyone in their faction to join them for the assault, regardless of skill or combat effectiveness.  That approach was rare, but undeniably fun for all involved, including the defenders who did, almost inevitably through wieght of numbers, win in the end.  A positive experience.  However, much more common was that a single player equipped with unbalanced weaponry would endlessly circle areas where lower-skilled players took factioned missions, in order to butcher lower level players.  That dynamic seems to be very prevalent in the current games, particularly on WoW PvP servers, which by simple numbers of players will have defined many people's experience with PvP - WoW is or was their first and only MMORPG, and a few days on a PvP server may almost inevitably see them forever see PvP as "bad".  This playstyle for the hunter is positive, but for the many many prey is a negative.  Eventually, the prey simply give up and leave, as their experience is simply negative - which is what seemed to be happening en masse in UO before the introduction of the non-PvP Trammel.  That is not the case for all players, indeed many harvesters find PvP a welcome unplanned surprise to break the monotony of reseource gathering that is now also prevalent in many games.

Many current game systems facilitate what is generally called "ganking", such that the majority of players either have little or no PvP experience due to "PvE" rulesets, or they tend to have entirely negative experiences with PvP, because they have only experienced the "ganking".  This creates a bias, and a definition issue - when we talk about PvP, what do we really mean?  I for one do not consider online FPS games, or any form of duelling in MMORPGs as "PvP".

At a more fundamental level, I am probably not alone in holding a concern about the messages that many PvP enabled games give.   Specifically, many strongly support the idea that preying on the weak is a good thing - there is no underlying mechanic that supports mercy, tolerance, valor, or even self-sacrifice for the greater good.  The Law of Armed Conflict is genreally simply not included, such that even fansasy armies who have "prinicples" and "morals" simply do what everyone else does: kill them all regardless.  The PvP systems currently tend to support selfishness and a "me" focus.  In particular, all of the PvP systems I have seen so far give points for killing an opponent, I have not yet encountered a game that supports points for surrendering or any other option of interacting with an opponent.  The penalty for killing a non-challenging opponent tends to be only not recieveing points rather than anything remotely resembling disapproval, even when the action is contrary to the fiction of the game.  Alternative game mecahnics could certainly be implemented to support other outcomes, however all of the current games that I am aware of have chosen not to do that.

The overall outcome is that the current suite of game mechanics in MMORPGs that I am aware of promote and support antisocial behaviour.  Ironically old UO, when it had the "murderer" and "thief" systems, was in many ways on the right track with unstructured free for all PvP.  While the penalty mechanics could be avoided to a significant extent, they were still present to convey the message that what the player was doing was "bad".  In many ways, by allowing people to play thieves and murderers, UO sent a clear moral message that the newer games have simply abdicated all responsibility for.  The current leading games have softened many aspects of their gameplay, but unfortunately they seem to have lost any sense that someone who is ganking or otherwise doing something "bad" should actually face some genuine consequences.

The end result is that as a consequence of game design choices, and in particular player conduct rule choices, PvP really is often a "bad" thing, because the most prevalent forms of PvP encourages antisocial behaviour and behavious that is morally wrong.  This is an unfortunate trend, because PvP, properly implemented, adds a wonderfully dynamic challenge to players beyond the static content designed into the world.  My view is that PvP is actually a brilliant aspect of MMORPGs generally, but in its present implementation in the games I am familiar with it is open very fairly to serious criticism because of the way in which it is implemented.


Flute.