Creating a PvP system

[TheDjinnFor]

Introduction

So a recent article that appeared in DDO-Daily listed "Player versus Player" as the 8th most wanted addition to DDO out of a sample of almost 500 players. So I'm assuming this is a request for some sort of addition to the existing PvP system that is bigger, better, and more balanced for a wide variety of classes and players, hopefully including some more interesting gameplay.

Now, I'm totally against PvP in MMOs, and for one reason only: they always, always, always suck. There is not a single MMO out there that can just add PvP in without some serious overhaul to the existing structure of the game, unless it was built and planned from the start. Usually it's broken and extremely shallow (even when planned ahead of time), the biggest factor being that the game itself is pretty broken and shallow. Often changes in PvP ripple through the PvE system, causing unwanted effects; developers can't balance both needs, and the game struggles.

Most MMOs out there (with their roots in RPG and MUD-style games) are extremely numbers based: whoever has bigger numbers wins, and that usually manifests itself through gear or levels. In other cases, you'll have one type of class that's just completely perfect for PvP and dominates the entire playing field with one broken, mindless tactic. In almost every case, PvP is not 'Player versus Player', but 'Character versus Character'; that is, the player really doesn't have to put any effort or time into the fight; the character either automatically wins, or automatically loses.

Know that, despite DDOs superior combat system, it has neither the depth nor the variety for 'Player versus Player'. Take two PvE-specced melee characters, for instance: what sort of tactics or strategies could they employ against each other? Basically, walk up to the opponent and start swinging: whoever has higher DPS-to-HP wins. Possibly, they might both have stunning blow or trip: then, whoever lands the first stun attack wins. Wow: leaving the victory up to predetermined random chance... what was that about 'Player versus Player'? The same could be said of casters (and, in fact, all of DDO), although their burst dps output and save-or-suck/die (and, even worse, the 'you-can't-save-so-just-suck/die' ray) spells would, and do, dominate PvP. DDO is a numbers-before-players game in most situations, as much as you would like to argue otherwise (at least in PvP).

The environment has little to no effect on how players do PvP, except perhaps to determine where we can and can't walk; this narrows our options down considerably and makes it harder for a player to actively influence a battle. Items are numbers based at best, which just further perpetuates the problem of "battles are won and lost before they're even fought". Most special abilities and spells have a very narrow spectrum of where they can be used and what they're good for, which makes most fights obvious and shallow. In short, there really is no element in DDO that might make it possible for there to be 'player versus player'.

On the other hand, if we truly want PvP, then, as the avowed critic of such a concept, I'm going to propose a form PvP that might just live up to my own standards.

Objectives

1. Create a PvP system that has depth and variety, and encourages more 'player versus player' and less 'number versus number', placing emphasis on both player choices and actions (rather than numbers or chance), that are made during the battle (rather than beforehand). This should, however, work with the existing heavily numbers-based game.

2. Create a PvP system that in no way influences the existing PvE system, which includes offering rewards in the form of gear or items, spawning character and race balance changes that would influence PvP, and other forms of influence.

3. Create a PvP system that does not place much emphasis on kills or deaths (which I have explained would not work well given the current classes) and that gives each class a means to contribute to their team in some way.

Arguments

First, the system needs to be team-based and respawn-based focusing on group co-ordination over individual prowess and kills. Arguably, those who can kill well will have a strong means to contribute by doing just that, while those who cannot should be allowed some sort of method to contribute. Killing a foe should send them back to a respawn location that is slightly out of the way of the rest of the action but not so far that they can't get back. A rest and resurrection shrine with a 5 minute waiting timer (edit: on the rest shrine) should be located at this spot.

Second, following from the first, the environment or map must be large and well-detailed with certain positions being strong for certain strategies and tactics and others being weak. Rather than an open plain with two groups meeting at the center to face off, detailed terrain will give a team who uses it to its advantage by taking up superior positions or avoiding powerful groups of foes. A large map will prevent those who are best at killing from controlling most of the map while allowing those who are experienced and skilled (important!) to win by using the terrain to its fullest. The key here is that the advantages must be intangible: a high location gives cover and a good view, while a certain narrow pass helps you reach your enemies base easily. Nothing really numbers-based.

Third, following from one and two, a team should have a specific objective to complete, the simplest being some sort of capture the flag game. Ideally there should be multiple places to capture from; perhaps three per team. Once all three are captured, the team wins the game. This does two things: one, it rewards team co-ordination and creates many strategies, and two, it creates a small negative feedback loop that increases tension and excitement and helps an unlucky team get back into the game; it's easier to defend when you only have one flag to the enemies two or three, and it's easier to capture when you've got more to choose from so you can focus your efforts, so even though you're down you're not always out.

Fourth, following from the above, some sort of major, non-DDO mechanic should be introduced to help give low-numbers players a boost and help make battles less predictable. It is as follows:

The 'Major' Mechanic

Ideally, it should be something that is significant for all players and characters, something that could turn the tide of battle at any moment and provide tons of strategies and tactics for a well coordinated group. They should provide tactics for offense and defense and even utility actions. My solution, then, is that since the game is already heavily dominated by numbers, this major mechanic should be huge buffs or debuffs.

Some sort of flag, totem, or banner should be available as items to be carried in the primary hand. The Radiant Servant PrE showed that constant buff-like effects may be applied over a wide area; I propose a similar concept, only it's an item to be carried. Certain players would be responsible for being 'banner-carriers', players who hold, as a two-handed weapon, a scepter-like object that provides buffs over a fairly wide area. These buffs should be potent, almost game-breaking: +15 enhancement bonus to skills, or a +15 deflection bonus to AC, or a +10 profane bonus to all abilities, or a +20 stacking bonus to existing SR, and more, equally as crazy. Even offensive banners (attack buffs, damage buffs, DC buffs, caster level buffs, and even debuffs and damage-over-time banners) can be added. Run speed, displacement, deathguard, anti-magic... anything and everything you can imagine.

At first glance this might sound a little ridiculous. A cleric SR buff of 32 + the banner bonus of 20 might make a character completely immune to SR-based spells (practically every save-or-suck spell in the game). But that's the point. The goal is to take the existing (and rather large) emphasis away from builds or character and put that emphasis into the players hands. Now, game-breaking choices are under the control of the player, during the battles. A strong leader who knows the enemy well could use these banners to great effect. Plus, any balance choices that need to be made can often be done to the banners before the classes and races.

To make such extreme buffs a little less extreme, they should be very heavy to pick up and hold, possibly 1000 or more pounds in weight. For high-str characters, they might be able to hold a few before slipping into medium/heavy load (and thus becoming slower), while non-melees can't carry them at all. These banner holders would be responsible for protecting their surrounding group members but would not be able to attack very well, nor could just any character be a banner holder (or hold much of a variety). More powerful banners could cover a smaller area, while less powerful could be spread out over a wide area. Additionally, if two banners from the same team overlapped each other, neither of them would work. If a player is stunned, tripped, or otherwise incapacitated (dead, entangled, whatever), their banner should de-activate.

These banners could be littered all over the place on the map, or come available in each teams bases, or both. They may be exclusive to a team, or shared between the two teams (and could be captured), or a mix of neutral and team-specific banners. They could be randomized or the same for both teams, whatever you can think of. In any case, the banners would be the first thing to balance before anything else.

The banners, as a whole, would control most of the game. Where teams bring their banners, and what banners they bring, would decide whether they win a fight or lose, whether they swiftly stave off a tough attack or leave themselves and their flag wide open for assault, whether they control key areas of the map or fail to gain a foothold. Because we are rewarding player decisions and actions first/foremost, the game becomes more 'player versus player'.

Balance Between Classes

For pure classes, Barbarians are great as banner carriers, with their high HP/strength, and great run speed too. Fighters can work as anti-banner carriers, tripping and stunning them, and have good melee DPS and can work as slow-moving tank-like banner carriers, if need be. Rogues should be able to sneak and not be seen by enemies (this should be added to the game); plus they can set traps, too, acting as anti-spellcasters. Rangers can harass enemies (particularly casters) from a distance or fight in-close as melees, plus they can buff allies. Monks have great saves and are great for ninja hijacking flags, plus they can stun. Paladins have good saves and AC and can tank up as banner carriers, becoming practically immune to everything with the right banner. And Bards buff. Yeah.

As casters, Clerics and FvS have a good mix of offense and healing. FvS could last longer before running back to the shrine, while the banners might make having a large spell-list important (plus the Rad Servant PrE). With Wizards and Sorcerers, they work well in their existing PvP roles as anti everythings, but they have to stay on their toes and pick a wide variety of spells.

This balance is fairly loose, but it can be ironed out a little more. More thought needs to be put into it, but overall I think the banner system helps balance out classes fairly well and by taking the stress away from kills perhaps we can create a system that is more team-oriented and balanced across all classes.

Conclusions

You may not like this sort of PvP, one dominated by these weird, overpowered banners and with such emphasis taken away from kills. To tell you the truth, I probably wouldn't like it much. I think, however, it works well in making a system that captures the essence of 'player versus player'; that is, the player actually matters in it.

Feel free to throw whatever you'd like as ideas or criticisms. It's rough, and mostly conceptual, but I think it could work well given time and effort. I'm out for a bit.

[Uska]

That survey proves nothing about pvp as it didnt really poll people on what they wanted they just wanted you to rank the listed items if people were really polled the results would have been very differnt and I seriously doubt if pvp would make the top ten of any proper poll. also never should there been any balancing done to classes for PvP


Once again that poll doesnt prove that pvp is in demand people just had to rank it somewhere on that poll to particpate in that poll I saw the poll and didnt take part as you didnt have an option not to include pvp.

[Sleepingcap]

Im afraid you are quite mistaken regarding how the survey was carried out - I asked people to name the top 10 things (features/functions etc.) they would like implemented into DDO - they were free to not even mention PvP (and some even didn't) and were free to mention something completely else. Something that didn't make it to the top 10.

As for the PvP, Although I didn't add my own opinion to the 500 person survey - I would've given PvP a point aswell.
But if PvP would get implemented, I hope it gets done properly and not like some of the additions in the past that seem like they went the easy way out just to get the feature into the game.

[Healsavant]

Let turbine figure out how to make a windfall in that oh so cherished ddo store, and it will happen. Look what they just did to clerics, with each thing they change people are going to use some sort of reincarnation, most clerics did with the new pre, and will again once its nerfed, as with so many twf.........and with so many f2p coming in that have no real appreciation of Ddo mechanics other than it being just another hack and slash game it in my opinion Pvp will become a viable option for turbine to increase cash flow in the near future.

[TheDjinnFor]

Bump for opinions/views.

Hey, I posted it on a Sunday night well past midnight.

[jwdaniels]

I think that just means there are seven things more important for them to focus on than PvP, and I'm sure once some of those things are fixed there will be other things that take their place.

D&D is not a PvP game. The classes aren't balanced against each other. The design of D&D (and thus DDO by extension) is for players to group together and go out and beat things up. PvP is there because it has to be, but it doesn't need to affect the gameplay in any way for everyone else.

[TheDjinnFor]

Sounds like the OP is too long and people are just reading the first paragraph.

[sigtrent]

I think a PVPVE system might be the best in some ways.

Imagine a court like room with two sides and an invisible wall in the middle dividing it. Each side has a team of heroes of a given level range set for the match.

The room starts spawning mosters in equal proportions on both sides, tough critters of various types to challenge different aspects of the game, some casters, some brutes, some tanks etc... And it could throw out environmental hazards or traps into the mix as well.

As each team fights the faster they kill off the monsters, the quicker it ramps up the difficulty for the other team. Kind of like PvP tetris where when you clear blocks the enemy gets extra blocks. The intensity and power of monsters quickly ramps up until one team is eliminated.

So its competition but the characters are doing the thing that characters are built to do.

[TheDjinnFor]

I think a PVPVE system might be the best in some ways.

Imagine a court like room with two sides and an invisible wall in the middle dividing it. Each side has a team of heroes of a given level range set for the match.

The room starts spawning mosters in equal proportions on both sides, tough critters of various types to challenge different aspects of the game, some casters, some brutes, some tanks etc... And it could throw out environmental hazards or traps into the mix as well.

As each team fights the faster they kill off the monsters, the quicker it ramps up the difficulty for the other team. Kind of like PvP tetris where when you clear blocks the enemy gets extra blocks. The intensity and power of monsters quickly ramps up until one team is eliminated.

So its competition but the characters are doing the thing that characters are built to do.

I've seen that work in other games.

[Angelus_dead]

The room starts spawning mosters in equal proportions on both sides, tough critters of various types to challenge different aspects of the game

That kind of head-to-head PVE does very little to satisfy the customers who desire PVP. What they want is to engage in pretend battle against another person, not get the best time killing a hundred mobs.

[Cam_Neely]

I come from the MMO Rappelz (which has gone downhill greatly, and I would not recommend it to not super hardcore grinders willing to spend mucho $$) and the one thing they do right is sieges. There are a few dungeons that you can 'own'. In order to 'siege' the dungeon owners, you have to run a time attack. To put this in context consider Tempest Spine.

Guild A owns Tempest Spine. TS can still be played by anyone that wants as normal, but Guild A takes a 1% tax of all drops (per merchant value). To Time Attack (TA) it, Guild B registers and has to race though, with time starting on first persons entrance and ending at the giants death. Say it takes 10 Min. Guild C does the same and gets 9 min 45 seconds. Who ever has the best time by the end of the week would be allowed to siege.

On Saturday at noon, both guilds get a 12 man raid and get dropped in an instance of TS. Guild A is dropped on the mountain top and Guild B is dropped at the entrance. The object is for Guild B to destroy a crystal that is on the mountain top (say with 10k HP). Guild A has to defend it. Many different death rules could be used. Your first death = instant respawn at the Mt Top. Second death requires a 5 second wait, third is 10 seconds, fourth is 20 seconds and so on.

A trade type window could be implemented before hand for wagering. 12 red scales v 12 red scales (or whatever) or if you are trying to get someone to siege your strong guild, you might offer 12 red scales v 6 red scales, to make people want to come siege you.

Would be fun I think.

[TheDjinnFor]

That could be interesting.

I'm not sure players or devs would appreciate having "bases" though after getting guild housing via airships, or turning this into a Guild vs. Guild competition. Sure, Guilds could compete, but providing benefits to guilds for winning? That wouldn't go over too well.

[Thechemicals]

PvP is boring in a PvE world.

[Josh]

I come from the MMO Rappelz (which has gone downhill greatly, and I would not recommend it to not super hardcore grinders willing to spend mucho $$) and the one thing they do right is sieges. There are a few dungeons that you can 'own'. In order to 'siege' the dungeon owners, you have to run a time attack. To put this in context consider Tempest Spine.

Guild A owns Tempest Spine. TS can still be played by anyone that wants as normal, but Guild A takes a 1% tax of all drops (per merchant value). To Time Attack (TA) it, Guild B registers and has to race though, with time starting on first persons entrance and ending at the giants death. Say it takes 10 Min. Guild C does the same and gets 9 min 45 seconds. Who ever has the best time by the end of the week would be allowed to siege.

On Saturday at noon, both guilds get a 12 man raid and get dropped in an instance of TS. Guild A is dropped on the mountain top and Guild B is dropped at the entrance. The object is for Guild B to destroy a crystal that is on the mountain top (say with 10k HP). Guild A has to defend it. Many different death rules could be used. Your first death = instant respawn at the Mt Top. Second death requires a 5 second wait, third is 10 seconds, fourth is 20 seconds and so on.

A trade type window could be implemented before hand for wagering. 12 red scales v 12 red scales (or whatever) or if you are trying to get someone to siege your strong guild, you might offer 12 red scales v 6 red scales, to make people want to come siege you.

Would be fun I think.

This sounds interesting.

[Cam_Neely]

That could be interesting.

I'm not sure players or devs would appreciate having "bases" though after getting guild housing via airships, or turning this into a Guild vs. Guild competition. Sure, Guilds could compete, but providing benefits to guilds for winning? That wouldn't go over too well.

Well they are not bases. Its purely in name only. You get no rights in TS, and you cant keep anyone from playing it as normal. The only difference would be at 'siege time' you enter with your 12 man party for this different instance and are dropped at your 'base'. The 'base' would just be the mt top as it is now, just with the cainath crystal in the middle. 99% of the time TS is exactly the same. The 1% tax is just what you could do in the other MMO, where the market is much different, but there was no wager option, which I think would be much better then the tax itself.

One thing I forgot to mention, is there is a time limit on it, so if you defend your crystal for 60 min, then the siege is over and the defenders win. If the attackers break the crystal 2 things could happen.

1.) the siege is over and the attackers are now the new owner of the dungeon and have to defend it the following weekend
or
2.) The attackers are now the defenders and have to defend the crystal for the rest of the hour.

Of course this is shoe horning in the other games system into DDO. I think it could be cool if you could just challenge another 12 person group, with the wager window included. You could always wager nothing, or just 1cp or something like that. But could be an interesting mechanism to encourage, say a group of lv 15s to challenge a group of 12TRs