The secret to fun....
by Katelan Moye · in General Discussion · 02/10/2008 (3:47 pm) · 6 replies
This article is a perfect example of fun in games.
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/Pyrostasis/022008/1175_Why-I-miss-real-pvp-in-MMOs-and-why-I-think-we-have-lost-the-secret-to-fun
-Syn
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/Pyrostasis/022008/1175_Why-I-miss-real-pvp-in-MMOs-and-why-I-think-we-have-lost-the-secret-to-fun
-Syn
#2
02/12/2008 (12:18 pm)
That was an awesome article. I miss that about Neocron... It had a pretty open PVP system. I even have a story close to his. Good stuff! 
#3
02/12/2008 (1:55 pm)
Yeah, but I personally don't agree. I tried out UO right at the same time, and it was full of PK'ers. You'd log in, walk out of town about 5 feet, and get killed for your starter gear. Repeat ad-infinitum. How is that fun?
#4
I myself have been burned by EVE online, attacked and podded in a .8 security area next to a jumpgate.
But on the flipside, I've been dreaming up an MMO for years now that feature player created settlements, and the ability for players to destroy rival settlements.
Until you can completely balance an MMO, high risk PvP will only appeal to a very small percentage of players, no matter how much you personally love it.
02/12/2008 (2:13 pm)
I have a friend who was turned off of MMOs because of UO, it took a good week of convincing to get him to try city of heroes. He had joined UO durring the beta, played for a long time, then left after a band of guys many levels below him ambushed him after exiting a hard dungeon and stealing everything he had, including one the the completely unique items (no clue what).I myself have been burned by EVE online, attacked and podded in a .8 security area next to a jumpgate.
But on the flipside, I've been dreaming up an MMO for years now that feature player created settlements, and the ability for players to destroy rival settlements.
Until you can completely balance an MMO, high risk PvP will only appeal to a very small percentage of players, no matter how much you personally love it.
#5
Everything became about the arena. Blizzard started balancing everything else in the game to balance the arena. A bunch of the elitist assholes decreed that arena was the one true test of skill in WoW, and people believed them and repeated it. Arena gear was so much better than accessible normal gear that to stay competitive in regular pvp and some pve, you had to get some arena gear.
And you know what? It's not fun going into an arena and having a bunch of guys who are specced and geared to kill you, kill you. That's not fun, it's not sporting. It's just getting killed repeatedly.
I never enjoyed pvp much at all until I got to 60 and had full tier2 gear, at which point the normal battlegrounds became a lot more fun because I didn't just get steamrolled.
Overall, the simple situation is this: it's just not fun getting your ass repeatedly handed to you. What the guy in the original linked article did was take this not-fun and build a whole situation out of it, where he eventually kicked some other guy's ass, and that guy suffered a bunch of not-fun because of it. The whole pvp exercise in MMOs is [and probably always will be] a situation where *someone* is losing, which isn't fun.
Gary (-;
02/12/2008 (2:39 pm)
And for what it's worth, the arena was a big part of what killed WoW for me.Everything became about the arena. Blizzard started balancing everything else in the game to balance the arena. A bunch of the elitist assholes decreed that arena was the one true test of skill in WoW, and people believed them and repeated it. Arena gear was so much better than accessible normal gear that to stay competitive in regular pvp and some pve, you had to get some arena gear.
And you know what? It's not fun going into an arena and having a bunch of guys who are specced and geared to kill you, kill you. That's not fun, it's not sporting. It's just getting killed repeatedly.
I never enjoyed pvp much at all until I got to 60 and had full tier2 gear, at which point the normal battlegrounds became a lot more fun because I didn't just get steamrolled.
Overall, the simple situation is this: it's just not fun getting your ass repeatedly handed to you. What the guy in the original linked article did was take this not-fun and build a whole situation out of it, where he eventually kicked some other guy's ass, and that guy suffered a bunch of not-fun because of it. The whole pvp exercise in MMOs is [and probably always will be] a situation where *someone* is losing, which isn't fun.
Gary (-;
#6
The essence of the gameplay he described boils down to this: Player A has some objective (whether this be to peacefully mine ore, make bows, kill kobolds or goblins, or any number of things) and Player B has a diametrically opposed goal (undermine the smithing guild that Player A is part of, steal his bows for an army of kobolds/whatever, aid kobolds/goblins against an invasion of adventurers, etc). Anyone who has ever played Zombie Master* (HL2 mod) or Zombie Survival** (Garry's Mod gamemode) can tell you that a game in which two sets of players have opposed goals, and each set works cooperatively towards their set's goal, is probably the most satisfying type of gameplay possible (regardless of genre of game, practically).
* - Zombie Master has a lot of issues. Left 4 Dead will be the real test of this style of game.
** - Zombie Survival has even worse and more plentiful issues than ZM. This is a good example of how SUCK this type of game can be if one side is vastly overpowered/able to exploit.
02/14/2008 (4:05 pm)
I think this guy actually has the idea right, but he's misidentifying why the underlying gameplay is fun and interesting. It's not because someone can kill you and make all your time worthless, it's because these games *need* players to have opposing goals that work within the framework of the game (i.e., for most MMOs, quests or missions).The essence of the gameplay he described boils down to this: Player A has some objective (whether this be to peacefully mine ore, make bows, kill kobolds or goblins, or any number of things) and Player B has a diametrically opposed goal (undermine the smithing guild that Player A is part of, steal his bows for an army of kobolds/whatever, aid kobolds/goblins against an invasion of adventurers, etc). Anyone who has ever played Zombie Master* (HL2 mod) or Zombie Survival** (Garry's Mod gamemode) can tell you that a game in which two sets of players have opposed goals, and each set works cooperatively towards their set's goal, is probably the most satisfying type of gameplay possible (regardless of genre of game, practically).
* - Zombie Master has a lot of issues. Left 4 Dead will be the real test of this style of game.
** - Zombie Survival has even worse and more plentiful issues than ZM. This is a good example of how SUCK this type of game can be if one side is vastly overpowered/able to exploit.
Torque Owner Jason Gossiaux
Indie Dev