Do we really need PvP?

[pr0ger]

Originally Posted by grimjim

PvP argument summary
[...]
*Food Arrives.*

Spod 1: "What the hell's this? I didn't order peanuts!!!"
[...]
Chef: "It changed while you were ordering sir. Now everything comes with peanuts."
Spod 1: "Well, I'm not eating any."
Spod 2: *Grabs handful of peanuts, leaps across restaraunt and beats Spod 1 up, while force-feeding him peanuts* SEE! ISN'T THIS FUN! EAT THE PEANUTS! EAT THEM! EAT!
Spod 1: *Swells up and dies* "Wanted... Jalfrezi... and poppadoms... urghhhh....
Spod 2: "That was great!"

May I change it a little more accurately (because it will be hybrid server) :

Chef: "It changed while you were ordering sir. Now everything comes with peanuts."
Spod 1: "Well, I'm not eating any."
Spod 2: *Eat tons of peanuts* "Hey that's great, you must eat them!"
Spod 1: "No Way!" *try to remove as much as peanuts from his curry, eat, swallow some leftover peanuts and choke a bit*
Spod 2: "Ah well sorry dude, but you'll have to get used to..."


What PvP will add to non-PvP playerbase ?
- trouble to wander/hunt/dig safely when not in their homeland
- tougher PvE hunts
- yammers in region chat.

[rushin]

Originally Posted by pr0ger

What PvP will add to non-PvP playerbase ?
- trouble to wander/hunt/dig safely when not in their homeland
- tougher PvE hunts
- yammers in region chat.

thats good though isnt it? (see various game is too easy/getting easier posts)
umm not sure what yammers are though, so at least the first 2 are good right

[grimjim]

Originally Posted by pr0ger

What PvP will add to non-PvP playerbase ?
- trouble to wander/hunt/dig safely when not in their homeland
- tougher PvE hunts
- yammers in region chat.

Part of the reason I chose peanuts is because they contaminate anything else that comes into contact with them...

[fateress]

Originally Posted by uhuhu

YES for PvP!

Finally, something me and the french fry can agree on!

[ashitaka]

Originally Posted by grimjim

Yes you can. Lore is what has happened in the past. The storyline is what is happening now.

Imposing a storyline, or 'railroading' is a common early mistake in TTRPGs where you do not allow room for your players to act in unpredictable ways. An interactive game, whether online or around a table with your mates isn't a matter of _telling_ a story, it is a matter of crafting one together.

Mistake? How can you say it is a mistake?
Whether you want it or not, Nevrax has bee railroading you for one year through defined events. Players are more and more excited about what will happen and are asking the next plot.
In terms of Game Design, if you have the chance to once study Game Design, you'll see the error of many MMORPG is to let the players do whatever they want to. I won't explain you by writing a whole book on this topic, but to sum it up, the players ask for freedom and freedom looses them. Linearity in a game is the best way to please the players even if they yell they want freedom. It's not from me, you can ask Gamedesigners. And in MMORPG, if you let players do their own adventures, a lot of them will be very annoyed. You have to give them a story, an adventure by yourself.

Originally Posted by grimjim

And yet they do provide resurrection, without any return, to everyone whether they side with them or not. A compromise for gameplay of course, but still, one must rationalise it into RP when you take a reasonably neutral stance.

Well, that's OOC view. You know that Nevrax won't make perma-death even if you yell everywhere that Kara/Kamis are both the ennemy.

Originally Posted by grimjim

Indeed, the lore stances of both the Tryker and the Fyros to both religions is pretty much "Yeah, whatever..." - both are inclined far more towards the neutral and only pay lip service to their faction in each case.

Eternal life is ubiquitous on Atys, it is not wonderful or amazing. You're looking at it from a human perspective there. To a homin on Atys the provision of resurrection happens regardless of faction or devotion, it is a service that is provided to us. We don't worship the water board for providing running water IRL, nor do we pray to the power company for making all these magic lights and computers work. It's just a fact of life.

You're wrong. See the last events in Pyr. There were perma-deads. It was on NPC side because OOCly speaking Nevrax don't want to kill a PC. Death exists and is still in Homins' hearts.

Originally Posted by grimjim

Matis are the aggressors, the imperialists. They enslaved the Tryker and have fought every other race. King Yrkanis owes his life to the Zorai and the Fyros and yet has made expansionist speeches. They are also the most devout to the Karavan and it is Jena who it has been said is coming to Atys with her 'Celestial Army'. None of this makes them, or their religion, sound particularly 'nice' does it?

On another side they are defenders of beauty, elegancy, and prefer diplomacy upon direct fight, contrary to the Fyros that are considered as brutal. Isn't it nice?

Originally Posted by grimjim

It would be if the Zorai had done anything like as much as the Matis have. The Zorai's struggle was internal, before coming to the new lands they were largely insular. They helped Yrkanis, they selflessly fight the goo and devote themselves to spiritualism. They have no imperial ambitions. I don't see much evil there! That's from a neutral OOC standpoint BTW, not an IC standpoint.

You forgot Zoraïs enslaved Trykers and let them die in front of their city gates while kitins were attacking. Well, it *could* be a part of history Trykers learn by their parents.

Originally Posted by grimjim

PvP causes far more problems than it creates solutions. It is NOT an RP aid, it leads to ganking, cheating, increased power levelling, reciminations and people playing the game to find the best 'build' and most effective options, playing with statistics and odds, the 'game' rather than the 'roleplay'.

No. That's totally wrong. PvP is not necessarily open, full and free. Stop reducing PvP to ganking and cheating.
Let's take an example so you stop the paranoia:
Ultima Online. It started with full PvP. At the beginning it was rather good, but because of PKs, more and more RPers began to leave. A mirror of the world has been created with consentant PvP (Wars between guilds). RPers took it as a chance. RP in Ultima Online without PvP? that's only gossiping at the tavern (quickly boring) and monster bashing (same on the long run... UO is 8 years old). RP PvP as it is called in Ultima Online has rules that everybody agrees in order everybody has fun. I've never been ganked, never seen anyone cheating. I've seen great battles and exciting skirmishes. PvP at the service of RP. That's possible, that works. If you don't believe me there, we can stop the discussion.

Originally Posted by grimjim

You don't need PvP to have conflict.

We have the Kitin, we have the Kami, we have the Karavan, they can duke it out and homin should be able to choose to fight, or not, or to place their banner where they will regardless. Both sides might decide to try and use people but those people don't have to follow.

If you believe Kamis and Karavan can accept that, you didn't understand the Lore IMHO. Basically without PvP, you can wipe K/K right now.
I know that in MMORPG, players tend to gather to defend their world. But how sad would be the world if we would be all friends against the evil kitins. That smells big time and I wouldn't play.

Originally Posted by grimjim

At one time I would have agreed with you, however, people play to get away. Everyone is the hero of their personal story and any game - not to mention other players - have to respect that or you're messing up other people's enjoyment. The characters ARE the heroes. The everyday folk are the ones that wander around at random in the wilderness or in the towns. If someone does want to play 'Joe Schmoe, crafter of boots' then more power to them, but everyone wants to be a hero, to make a difference, even if they're more Jack Burton than Peter Parker.

But when a player wants to be THE hero, that mess people enjoyment. Otherwise there would be no problem to gank and to cheat
Seriously, if the game gives Joe Schmoe a feeling of recognition (through missions, event, whatever), the player won't search for glory by the sword. That's how the game rewards players that makes players want to be a hero or not. Well that's another topic.

Originally Posted by grimjim

"To come back to the topic, PvP is more interaction between players. So it's better for RP."

You'd think so, but really, it isn't.

Yes it is. I'm speaking by experience and study, not just tossing arguments you know. And thanks to take the following words in the quote, because I didn't say PvP was made for RP nor that it hadn't problems.

Originally Posted by grimjim

* Traditional RP is based upon the cooperative 'party' model. Working together against outside threats, complementing each other's skills and so on. Player Vs Player is antiethical to 30+ years of roleplaying tradition and tendency - and there's a good reason for that.
* PvP play increases the OOC stresses on the games in terms of hostility between players, gankers, griefers and so on.
* PvP allows one type of player to impose their style of play upon another. One annoying player can spoil the play experience for dozens, if not hundreds of other players.
* PvP provides impetus to 'decode' the nature of the game for the most effective character build for combat, not the best choices for roleplay.

Whatever? Board games are PvP most of the time, even when they are RP. There are pen&paper RPGs where a player can play a traitor thus play against the other players. And there are MMORPG where PvP is the best ally of RP, like Ultima Online. I would be very pissed off if I couldn't play war between Vesper and Trinsic, if a ruffian could spit on my shoes without fearing my sword. Roleplaying tradition... please don't speak about traditions thank you...

Thank you for your reduced vision of PvP = gankers and griefers.

Originally Posted by grimjim

It _isn't_ fair and until a game seriously moves away from levels towards a more modern skill based system (Ryzom is only about 25% of the way to a more 'true' RPG) that'll just continue.

I totally agree. I said it before. Ryzom's level system isn't designed for PvP. That's why I take part to balances in order to lower the barriers. That's the problem for PvP in Ryzom. Not gankers and griefers. I understand your fears, but there's already PvP in Ryzom and I don't see any forum board fights about it like in badly designed MMORPG with full PvP.

Originally Posted by grimjim

OK, so someone might be an awesome warrior in face to face conflict so IG you've no choice really other than to back down or get killed. In a real RPG you might wait until he's asleep and slit his throat, you might get in a lucky shot that cripples him or something else. Level systems allow the a**hats to dominate largely unopposed.

At a given point, you have to code the actions of characters. Slitting throats was not kept in Ryzom's Game Design. By the way, killing someone that is afk is griefing
In a real RPG you can kill others, you are not swinging in the wind in front of someone that insulted you.
Oh, by the way... in T4C, PvP servers were the best for RP, and non-PvP servers were soiled by griefing. Aw, that breaks some rules...

[grimjim]

Originally Posted by ashitaka

Mistake? How can you say it is a mistake?
Whether you want it or not, Nevrax has been railroading you for one year through defined events. Players are more and more excited about what will happen and are asking the next plot.

I can say it is a mistake because I am a roleplayer of 20+ years experience and a professional RPG designer, because of direct experience, knowledge and understanding.

Linearity is the reason Adventure Books sell poorly, it is the number one reason for the failure of campaigns (GMs forcing players to play a certain way and using deus ex machina to do so).

This is why it has the term 'railroading' attached to it. The GM has a vision and you are not really guiding your own way through the world, you are just acting out the role assigned to you. This is thought of as a bad thing in almost all cases.

It is possible to railroad invisibly, to create the illusion of choice while still restricting people to moving in the general direction you want but this takes considerable skill.

Standard computer games are only capable of extremely basic tricks in terms of non-linear play. Of those games Arcanum, KOTOR, Fallout and Deus Ex are the only ones to really manage it successfuly and, even then, the choices are still fairly basic. In the 'RPG' games mentioned your choices are good/evil, light/dark, Magic/machines/good/evil and their effect on the overall story is minimal.

Standard computer games lack the ability to craft plots on the fly, to react to unexpected player actions (or to allow them) and this is why TTRPGs remain superior in many ways to any computer game - simply because of the freedom. This will remain the same until AI comes along and, even then, it'll likely have better things to do than run games for people.

MMORPGs exist somewhere between TTRPGs and computer RPGs. In a lot of ways they are like large scale LARPS (live action roleplay games) which I also have 10+ years experience in. They have many restrictions due to the nature of computer games but they also have a lot of freedom since they are constantly developing over time and the developers and GMs _should_ have the opportunity to react to player's desires and actions. Within individual events this may be reduced to a binary win/lose situation but over time the accumulated effect can be considerable.

Originally Posted by ashitaka

In terms of Game Design, if you have the chance to once study Game Design, you'll see the error of many MMORPG is to let the players do whatever they want to. I won't explain you by writing a whole book on this topic, but to sum it up, the players ask for freedom and freedom looses them. Linearity in a game is the best way to please the players even if they yell they want freedom. It's not from me, you can ask Gamedesigners. And in MMORPG, if you let players do their own adventures, a lot of them will be very annoyed. You have to give them a story, an adventure by yourself.

Utterly and completely wrong. All RPGs basically feed on the thought one can have watching a movie, you see the hero do something stupid and you say to yourself "I would do it differently." In an RPG, you can. The widest freedom to act possible is the best hook you can have. Linearity is the death of roleplaying, particularly in an MMORPG where the expectations are different.

Ryzom Ring _will_ be letting people craft their own content and there lies the true hope or damnation of Ryzom depending on the quality control and the emerging modding community.

I _am_ a game designer, albeit in a related field - there is a ton that MMORPGs could learn from 30+ years of TTRPGs to get them out of the rut they're in.

To make TRULY interactive fiction you _cannot_ and _must_not_ tell a story, you absolutely must make the players, the _communuty_ (Important word) part of the process. They must make impact, they must leave footprints, they must craft their own legends.

Only in the broadest sense can you 'tell a story' and that is largely made up of events which may or may not be changed, defined, diverted or overcome by player efforts.

One such event in Ryzom terms could be the coming of Jena.

What if the Matis people COULD reject the Karavan religion, depose their king and stand against the Karavan? How much more interesting would that be?

We've been told we can make an impact in the next episode, I remain slightly skeptical as CRPGs are always disappointing on the depth of effect you can have, but we'll see.

Originally Posted by ashitaka

Well, that's OOC view. You know that Nevrax won't make perma-death even if you yell everywhere that Kara/Kamis are both the ennemy.

Or, perhaps they have some use for us we can't envision, perhaps the resurrection has nothing _directly_ to do with either faction, perhaps they hope these people's minds can be changed.

Originally Posted by ashitaka

You're wrong. See the last events in Pyr. There were perma-deads. It was on NPC side because OOCly speaking Nevrax don't want to kill a PC. Death exists and is still in Homins' hearts.

The announcements, the commandments of each race contradict you. Personally I find such permadeath in events counter to the lore as given but make the mental step in my head that the killer has somehow destroyed the nanoseed or used some manner of special weapon to excuse the lack.

Originally Posted by ashitaka

On another side they are defenders of beauty, elegancy, and prefer diplomacy upon direct fight, contrary to the Fyros that are considered as brutal. Isn't it nice?

Heh heh, they consider THEMSELVES that way, but it isn't bourne out by the actions of the race in the lore. They are the violent expansionists. Fyros may be individually brutal and they may call themselves an Empire, but the lore doesn't bear them out as a brutal _society_.

Originally Posted by ashitaka

You forgot Zoraïs enslaved Trykers and let them die in front of their city gates while kitins were attacking. Well, it *could* be a part of history Trykers learn by their parents.

The Matis enslaved the Tryker you'll find. If you can give me a website reference for the above it'd be appreciated. Needless to say, the Matis enslavement and invasion of the Tryker homelands makes their alliance with the Matis somewhat bewildering in the context of the lore. If those two can kiss and make up then ANYONE can - which supports the hominist perspective.

Originally Posted by ashitaka

No. That's totally wrong. PvP is not necessarily open, full and free. Stop reducing PvP to ganking and cheating.

In the end that IS what it boils down to.
The strong killing the weak with no chance of failure due to level based systems.
Players going for the most effective character build for PvP (Cheating the system, Min-Maxing it is called in TTRPGs).
It encourages bad behaviour and causes OOC disruption in the community - the most important part of the game.

Your examples are idealistic. The honour system - expecting everyone to behave - doesn't work. Even with the limited PvP in game we have already seen recriminations in the forums, bad behaviour, ganking, threats, nastiness and an overabundance of one 'build' of character that has, up to this point, been most effective at PvP (and everything else).

You have had a few isolated good experiences with PvP. So have I but overall I still believe its effect to be negative.

My best example? For the greater part of a decade I was part of a large international LARP organisation called The Camarilla, running monthly, sometimes weekly, live-action roleplaying games set in the continuity of White Wolf's World of Darkness (old edition).

Basically, imagine a world-scale MMORPG played out in real life at scheduled meetings as well as over IRC, e-mail, phonecalls etc with full PvP (subject to clearance through GMs) and almost complete freedom within the ability of your character.

These games stem from TTRPG games so everyone involved is a roleplayer, the Storyteller series of games by and large encourages a more story and interaction style of play than - say - D&D as well, everyone involved was a roleplayer. Imagine such an ideal situation in an MMO!

What tore it apart so much that I eventually left? The fallout from PvP actions and the OOC politiking resulting from that. And that's in a theoretically 'ideal' situation!

It was worst in the game setting of the mileu that most encouraged the PvP action (Vampire), it was least bad in the games that discouraged PvP the most (Mage, Werewolf).

And the worst plots? The deus ex machina handed down from on high, unaffectable and unchanged no matter what you did. People making the same classic mistake, TELLING stories, not crafting them with people.

Here we don't have an ideal situation, not everyone is a roleplayer (even those who consider themselves to be!) but, for an MMORPG we have a great community, the BEST community of any MMORPG I've even seen or heard about. We're risking what, at the moment, is the killer asset of Ryzom on the dubious promise of PvP - something that many of us KNOW will have a deleterious effect on the community and the game.

Originally Posted by ashitaka

If you believe Kamis and Karavan can accept that, you didn't understand the Lore IMHO. Basically without PvP, you can wipe K/K right now. I know that in MMORPG, players tend to gather to defend their world. But how sad would be the world if we would be all friends against the evil kitins. That smells big time and I wouldn't play.

It would strengthen the community enormously and make for a far more enjoyable experience overall. Indeed, that was what a great many people were mostly expecting when they joined Ryzom - the Kitin being the great threat. As I said before, nothing unites people and makes them tolerate each other like a common enemy.

Originally Posted by ashitaka

But when a player wants to be THE hero, that mess people enjoyment. Otherwise there would be no problem to gank and to cheat
Seriously, if the game gives Joe Schmoe a feeling of recognition (through missions, event, whatever), the player won't search for glory by the sword. That's how the game rewards players that makes players want to be a hero or not. Well that's another topic.

Everyone is the hero of their own personal story, mess with that and you mess with their enjoyment of the game and they lose interest. Everyone must be given as engaging a story as possible. Not be belittled by a 15 year old powerleveller taking time off from script-attacking IRC rooms.

Originally Posted by ashitaka

Whatever? Board games are PvP most of the time, even when they are RP. There are pen&paper RPGs where a player can play a traitor thus play against the other players. And there are MMORPG where PvP is the best ally of RP, like Ultima Online. I would be very pissed off if I couldn't play war between Vesper and Trinsic, if a ruffian could spit on my shoes without fearing my sword. Roleplaying tradition... please don't speak about traditions thank you...

Board games are limited and finite games that determine a winner and losers. They do not have the investment of time, energy and emotion that goes into an RPG nor do they have the attachment to characters that RPGs have. Getting upset because your boot went to jail in monopoly is silly, getting upset because your Warrior you've been playing since high school got crushed by a rockfall and killed isn't.

There ARE P&P games where you can play a traitor, well, one Paranoia. But in that that is the whole point of the game, it is a comedy, you get clones and it is not designed for sustained play.

Having traitors in the player party in other RPGs is always risky and, most often, done at the GMs behest with strict controls and oversight on what the GM's 'stooge' is doing. It is not the default style of play which is cooperative rather than competetive - something that is a major strength of TTRPGs.

People do exploit the lack of PvP response to act like nuggets, dancing naked in front of guides when they're trying to deliver lore information and so on, but I'd rather watch someone dancing naked than put up with random PvP going off everywhere.

Most people AREN'T ROLEPLAYERS. Even here where we live in a relative bliss of maturity and pro-RP. PvP is not going to help, really, honestly, truly, I mean it, I speak with the voice of authority and experience on this matter. Thank you

Originally Posted by ashitaka

I totally agree. I said it before. Ryzom's level system isn't designed for PvP. That's why I take part to balances in order to lower the barriers. That's the problem for PvP in Ryzom. Not gankers and griefers. I understand your fears, but there's already PvP in Ryzom and I don't see any forum board fights about it like in badly designed MMORPG with full PvP.

Look a little harder.

And sorry about having to flop out the game designer/experience credentials at the start, but you sort of forced my hand there.

[sofiaoak]

Originally Posted by ashitaka

No. That's totally wrong. PvP is not necessarily open, full and free. Stop reducing PvP to ganking and cheating.
Let's take an example so you stop the paranoia:
Ultima Online. It started with full PvP. At the beginning it was rather good, but because of PKs, more and more RPers began to leave. A mirror of the world has been created with consentant PvP (Wars between guilds). RPers took it as a chance. RP in Ultima Online without PvP? that's only gossiping at the tavern (quickly boring) and monster bashing (same on the long run... UO is 8 years old). RP PvP as it is called in Ultima Online has rules that everybody agrees in order everybody has fun. I've never been ganked, never seen anyone cheating. I've seen great battles and exciting skirmishes. PvP at the service of RP. That's possible, that works. If you don't believe me there, we can stop the discussion.

I have seen all this, so let me comment someting. Mostly what ashitaka is saying above is true, but very narrow view of situations. More like roleplayers view.

Because UO's Pkers A LOT of people did leave UO. They did go mostly to PvE game called EverQuest. Some still says the PvP was good before Pkers ruin it. But it did has VERY high cost with the innocent (PvErs) blood. Problem was that PvP playing style was forced to PvErs, what does not work.

When consent PvP did come to UO, most of the player base did move those consent areas. Yes, a lot of good RPer was and still is there. But it's very close roleplaying circle. Basicly I would even say that a lot of UO's players never even did know that there is/was these RPer PvP guilds.

Then UO did also has faction wars, what was very ugly. Based by You choosing side and those sides have opens wars between of them. Ganging and so on... don't even wanna go there...

Ok, back to guild consent PvP wars. Guild could declare of wars between guilds, but also so that You don't have to accept the wars. What did made it consent. Problem here is that this is/was all private, what means majority of player base was not part of it. That is the cost of someting to be consent.

This same is happening here in Ryzom. They can create same kind of consent outpost wars. Problem is that, it's all, take or leave situations. It requires that You play by rules set by someone, because without it, it can't work. Also it require You to be part of PvP, wanted or not. Other ways You are droped out. So this consent wars, will help some people to play how they wanna, but could leave majority of player base cold. Not because they choose, but because they don't have other choises. This also means that this nice Ryzom story will be design for people who support the correct playing styles.

I don't mind if there is consent wars, but how can they give content to PvErs, if the other content isn't safe. You can't give two same option, safe and not safe. It will never work, people will always choose the safe one. If they don't give same content both playing styles, then the other side is unhappy. What I'm saying is that it does not matter how or what they do, someone will be always unhappy. It's just question, how many and what did it cost for Ryzom. That is the cost when You start playing with PvP and PvE possibilities on same game.

[michielb]

Could someone please close this thread: it's making me look for an other game to play...or better still remove it. Oh and something else: I've just read through this outpost thingy on the main site and guess what? you can keep em!

p.s. you can disregard my sig it does NOT apply to this post

[micrix]

Originally Posted by sofiaoak

That is the cost when You start playing with PvP and PvE possibilities on same game.

Wow, some of you ppl know a lot about games. Not me for sure. But from my view it should be possible. Why not design new elements for both, PvP and PvE.

Outpost could have both. An outpost can be a fortress to defend against PvP challanges but they could also be farms with Kitins/Bandits coming from time to time for the farmed produce. As long as a group (guild) owning an outpost can decline a PvP challenge this concept seems to be suitable for PvP and PvE players.

This also would give PvE players the possibility to accept "sometimes" a PvP challange. Off course should a guild loose one chance of decline when they attacked another outpost earlier.

[uhuhu]

PvP lalala PvP lalala