PvP style - WoW vs SWG
by Jonathon Stevens · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 07/06/2006 (10:43 am) · 12 replies
My team has been in deliberation about what 'style' of PvP to go with. We've settled on a nice hybrid of the two styles, but I figured I'd drop a thread and see what other people think and prefer. So, on with the question: Do you like the WoW style or the SWG style of PvP?
Quote:
WoW Style - You have either Horde or Alliance faction. The world is split into 'zones' (it's mostly seemless, so it's basically imaginary lines between each zone) which are either 'horde', 'alliance', or 'contested'. If a zone is horde, then alliance can not enter and attack a horde PC without first being attacked by that horde PC. Same is true with horde going into alliance territory. In contested territory it's open season on either faction. Of course, any of one faction can attack the other's NPCs at any time in any location.
Quote:
SWG Style - You have either Imperial, Rebel, or Neutral. You have two 'PvP declarations' which are either 'overt' or 'covert'. When 'overt' a player can be attacked by the other faction at any time anywhere. When covert, the player can not be attacked or attack unless a) that player is grouped with an Overt and the Overt is in battle with another overt from the other faction or b) that player receives a TEF (more on this in a second)
TEF - Temporary Enemy Flag - You receive a TEF when you are covert for attacking an NPC of the opposite faction or if you heal an OVERT faction member or if you are grouped with an overt player who is in battle with the opposite faction. TEFs go away after 10 minutes from last 'TEF related action' has occured.
No 'zones' exist, however whoever has the most player bases on the planet has their faction's NPCs spawn in the major cities.
Neutral can't go overt, however they can get TEFs from both factions.
About the author
With a few casual games under his belt as CEO of Last Straw Productions, Jonathon created the increasingly popular Indie MMO Game Developers Conference.
#2
There is also an interesting game called DarkFallOnline which looks to have similar ideals for its PvP system.
Both WoW and SWG imo are not true PvP. They're a half way house tact on to try to broaden their market appeal whilst making people feel like they're involved in PvP without truely experiencing the depth that real PvP (Even if you don't engage in direct fighting) can bring to a game.
Eve would not be he game it is today without such open PvP, the rich player generated history such as the great northern war that enveloped the majority of military and economic powers at the time would never have been fought on such a level by so many.
07/08/2006 (4:01 am)
I like neither. My style of PvP is more open and non-consensual such as that used in EVE-Online. You can PvP in the sense of blowing up other players, but also you can be much more subtle and PvP through political pressure, markets, blue print control... There are corporations that have not fired so much as a single shot at another player corporation, yet they engage fiercley in PvP each day and have a significant impact on some of the top PvP corps, be they military, economic or a hybrid.There is also an interesting game called DarkFallOnline which looks to have similar ideals for its PvP system.
Both WoW and SWG imo are not true PvP. They're a half way house tact on to try to broaden their market appeal whilst making people feel like they're involved in PvP without truely experiencing the depth that real PvP (Even if you don't engage in direct fighting) can bring to a game.
Eve would not be he game it is today without such open PvP, the rich player generated history such as the great northern war that enveloped the majority of military and economic powers at the time would never have been fought on such a level by so many.
#3
My personal feeling is that PvP should always be a voluntary choice. Clearly delineated zones handle that just fine; the antisocial folks get to shoot it out over there, and the less combative folks get to do their own thing without brawls erupting in the middle of their card game.
It reminds me of the kids' table at Thanksgiving... let the kiddies have their food fights and belching contests over in the corner, while the grownups have a more peaceful meal at the big table. =)
My game is situated on a space station, and I've adopted a three-tiered system for PvP. There are protected zones where no PvP is possible -- these are secure areas for the socializers to chat in. There are monitored zones where PvP is possible, but you will incur significant penalties if caught -- these are the zones where muggers and assassins will likely stalk their victims. Finally, there are unmonitored zones, where anything goes.
Players are always made aware when they are approaching a zone division, and a pneumatic tube transportation allows them to enter a danger zone without getting ambushed the second they enter the area.
07/08/2006 (2:15 pm)
I think it largely depends on the type of the game and the environment you've set up.My personal feeling is that PvP should always be a voluntary choice. Clearly delineated zones handle that just fine; the antisocial folks get to shoot it out over there, and the less combative folks get to do their own thing without brawls erupting in the middle of their card game.
It reminds me of the kids' table at Thanksgiving... let the kiddies have their food fights and belching contests over in the corner, while the grownups have a more peaceful meal at the big table. =)
My game is situated on a space station, and I've adopted a three-tiered system for PvP. There are protected zones where no PvP is possible -- these are secure areas for the socializers to chat in. There are monitored zones where PvP is possible, but you will incur significant penalties if caught -- these are the zones where muggers and assassins will likely stalk their victims. Finally, there are unmonitored zones, where anything goes.
Players are always made aware when they are approaching a zone division, and a pneumatic tube transportation allows them to enter a danger zone without getting ambushed the second they enter the area.
#4
I don't think it's possible to satisfy everyone's desire for the perfect PvP system... the approach I would recommend is to take the one that you feel YOU'D be most comfortable with. At least then you have an accurate frame of reference.
07/08/2006 (2:41 pm)
The thing is, most of the folks that enjoy free-for-all PvP enjoy being able to pick on people that are smaller than them, so letting them "go shoot it out over there" doesn't really satisfy their needs.I don't think it's possible to satisfy everyone's desire for the perfect PvP system... the approach I would recommend is to take the one that you feel YOU'D be most comfortable with. At least then you have an accurate frame of reference.
#5
You need to analyze what type of game you have and build a system that makes sense to the players of that game - a system that makes sense with the history of your world.
I'm guessing that if you have a SWG - WoW hybrid type of PvP, then your game has 2 factions? This being the case, just go with whatever your team agrees is the most fun. I do agree with the person that said you need to allow people to not PvP because some people simply don't like it. But you can restrict these people to a very small area...they'll be fine as long as there is at least ONE place where they cannot be attacked. I also agree with the person that said some PvPers satisfy their needs by preying on weaker players, so there need to be places where that is possible too.
07/12/2006 (2:12 pm)
The type of system you should actually adopt depends on the world you've built. The SWG system works in SWG because of the way the game is constructed, and because it is based on the Star Wars universe. The WoW system works because it's user friendly and easy to understand - which was pretty much the entire basis of WoW. The Eve system works because the game is all about economics, thus the PvP system reaches into economics as well.You need to analyze what type of game you have and build a system that makes sense to the players of that game - a system that makes sense with the history of your world.
I'm guessing that if you have a SWG - WoW hybrid type of PvP, then your game has 2 factions? This being the case, just go with whatever your team agrees is the most fun. I do agree with the person that said you need to allow people to not PvP because some people simply don't like it. But you can restrict these people to a very small area...they'll be fine as long as there is at least ONE place where they cannot be attacked. I also agree with the person that said some PvPers satisfy their needs by preying on weaker players, so there need to be places where that is possible too.
#6
allowing people to fight anyone, regardless of faction adds to realism. but as people have already said, its all about the game you are trying to create.
11/06/2006 (8:32 pm)
I have been testing and playing a game that is open PvP. it is full of griefing and players killing for no reason. it does make the game feel quite scary, which can be good to add the level of fear in a game. however there needs to be harsh-ish penalties for death and penalties for players who murder other players. battle is one thing, mugging is another ;)allowing people to fight anyone, regardless of faction adds to realism. but as people have already said, its all about the game you are trying to create.
#7
You won't get as much of the "pure" PvP base with that system, but that is a very high-maintenance group of players, so that may not be a bad thing.
12/13/2006 (4:18 am)
The SWG leaves more choice in the hands of the players as to when to engage in PvP. It also helps limit the activities of griefers (I define griefers as people who are actively trying to destroy the subsciption numbers to my game).You won't get as much of the "pure" PvP base with that system, but that is a very high-maintenance group of players, so that may not be a bad thing.
#8
02/12/2007 (1:42 pm)
Well, you could just say anything goes. However, you could have cops that will find out if you kill people weaker than you and they will try and catch you. Does this work for your type of game?
#9
02/12/2007 (1:50 pm)
Original SWG (With TEF) is the best. Its logical, and at time unfair yes, but such is war. (Pre-CU, NOT the NGE system)
#10
On another note: I also liked the idea I used a while back in a mod I made. I had a karma system. If you kill a player that your not supposed to be killing in a pvp zone your karma goes down. After about three 'illegal' kills you get put in a jail and have to wait for your karma to come back up to be released. Your weapons were also taken and you had to wait till your karma was 100%, after being paroled, before buying more weapons. So in the pvp areas players could kill each other but are limited to how many kills during a certain amount of time. Of course their was non-pvp areas also. You could also put bountys on players, and bounty hunters could kill those players (as missions) without their karma going down. Anyone who put out a bounty on a player could become a target themselves. This made it a little different than just randomly running around killing people in a pvp zone. You actually had a mission, and you got missions from mission terminals like in SWG.
Theres a lot you can do to make it more fun than swg & wow so be creative.
02/14/2007 (8:37 am)
I liked swg's original gameplay. And I liked how the guns got worse as you used them.On another note: I also liked the idea I used a while back in a mod I made. I had a karma system. If you kill a player that your not supposed to be killing in a pvp zone your karma goes down. After about three 'illegal' kills you get put in a jail and have to wait for your karma to come back up to be released. Your weapons were also taken and you had to wait till your karma was 100%, after being paroled, before buying more weapons. So in the pvp areas players could kill each other but are limited to how many kills during a certain amount of time. Of course their was non-pvp areas also. You could also put bountys on players, and bounty hunters could kill those players (as missions) without their karma going down. Anyone who put out a bounty on a player could become a target themselves. This made it a little different than just randomly running around killing people in a pvp zone. You actually had a mission, and you got missions from mission terminals like in SWG.
Theres a lot you can do to make it more fun than swg & wow so be creative.
#11
I prefer this was of MMO combat just because it gives me a choice and adds variety to the games due to mixed race/alignment guilds and their interaction with other guilds. Much more fun that Orcs Vs Humans all the time.
Just my thoughts. I guess this all depends on what type of MMO you are trying to create the combat for but the above would work for any choice really.
02/16/2007 (3:33 am)
Maybe go with the old Ultima Online style. Everyone is neutral until they join a guild. Then the guilds can choose to be at war with other groups or they can stay neutral. At peace means you can do friendly interactions with that guild (Healing, Buffs etc) if they are at war, they are PvP Flagged and can be attacked. UO was all based on community rules so the amount of ganking just because you were warred is cut down.I prefer this was of MMO combat just because it gives me a choice and adds variety to the games due to mixed race/alignment guilds and their interaction with other guilds. Much more fun that Orcs Vs Humans all the time.
Just my thoughts. I guess this all depends on what type of MMO you are trying to create the combat for but the above would work for any choice really.
#12
(I loved Shadowbane, and the ideas behind it, but hated not ever being able to solo play for fear of getting killed and looted all of the time.)
Have a FFA server that ppl can move to after being leveled up or whenever they feel like it.
Impose Safe-Zones if you feel the need.
Have Race/Guild/Alliance alignments only matter for bonuses/rewards. (example kill 5 opposing faction members over level x, get item y.)
The Karma thing will only tick ppl off. Unless you make it so it doesnt count for self defense.
03/18/2007 (4:27 am)
Have a "Carebear" server to allow ppl to level up. with the option to stay afterwards.(I loved Shadowbane, and the ideas behind it, but hated not ever being able to solo play for fear of getting killed and looted all of the time.)
Have a FFA server that ppl can move to after being leveled up or whenever they feel like it.
Impose Safe-Zones if you feel the need.
Have Race/Guild/Alliance alignments only matter for bonuses/rewards. (example kill 5 opposing faction members over level x, get item y.)
The Karma thing will only tick ppl off. Unless you make it so it doesnt count for self defense.
Torque 3D Owner Jonathon Stevens