Curse

Avarre · Jul 15, 2009, 02:24 AM // 02:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Just in terms of raw effectiveness it only makes sense to carefully explain mistakes and generally soothe the blow of telling someone they sucked if you're trying to maintain a lasting relationship with that person. People rage because it gets results. It trashes morale in the long term, but if you just want someone to pay attention right now call them out.

Honestly I think it's a pretty good tactic, especially in PUGs. Competitive players suck it up, especially if you're an effective leader; the people who emo out after getting called out aren't the types of people with the stomach to be effective anyway.

Rage to get things done, constructive hugs later.

JR · Jul 15, 2009, 07:59 AM // 07:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

That also applies to GW, and is pretty much my point.

That's very nice, but it's not my point.

There has never been a well made PvP only MMO, so no case study to reference when you say that PvP only MMOs can't work. Without a case study to back you up on that claim you are either a professor of MMOlogy, or an idiot.

YunSooJin · Jul 15, 2009, 08:01 AM // 08:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Rage to get things done, constructive hugs later.

Real men don't need hugs.

arcanemacabre · Jul 15, 2009, 08:23 AM // 08:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

That's very nice, but it's not my point.

There has never been a well made PvP only MMO, so you no case study to reference when you say that PvP only MMOs can't work. Without a case study to back you up on that claim you are either a professor of MMOlogy, or an idiot.

Umm, no. I say it can't work because it can't by its very definition. If you remove the nearly limitless customization (through gear, stats, skills, etc) and random chance modifiers, you remove two very important qualifiers that make the game an RPG. But those things are exactly what you need to remove to make a game truly balanced. If you don't have 'true balance,' how can said game ever be realistically competitive?

In the sense of success, I just don't think there are enough people who enjoy PvP RPG. I mean, most competitive players are either sports game fanatics or FPS/RTS. Even if you could get a truly balanced RPG PvP-only game, I just don't see a huge market for it.

You say Fury had "pretty impressive" numbers when it opened, but what are we talking? Compare it to other competitive genres and their opening numbers. Say, Halo or Madden NFL. Then, compare it to other MMOs such as WAR or LotR. Are we talking higher than any of those? Initial numbers are important to look at because it shows how many people are interested in that type of game.

If you can tell me honestly that you think there is a big enough market out there for a PvP-only RPG, based on your knowledge and without bias, then I will concede. If you really think even a game like GW could have survived on PvP money alone, reaching numbers anywhere near "6mil copies sold," supplying more than enough updates to keep the players happy, then I will concede. I just don't see it.

JR · Jul 15, 2009, 09:30 AM // 09:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

If you remove the nearly limitless customization (through gear, stats, skills, etc) and random chance modifiers, you remove two very important qualifiers that make the game an RPG. But those things are exactly what you need to remove to make a game truly balanced. If you don't have 'true balance,' how can said game ever be realistically competitive?

In the sense of success, I just don't think there are enough people who enjoy PvP RPG. I mean, most competitive players are either sports game fanatics or FPS/RTS. Even if you could get a truly balanced RPG PvP-only game, I just don't see a huge market for it.

When did RPGs get into this discussion? A Role Playing Game implies a story, which is obviously not describing a PvP only game. An MMO is not neccesarily an MMORPG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

You say Fury had "pretty impressive" numbers when it opened, but what are we talking? Compare it to other competitive genres and their opening numbers. Say, Halo or Madden NFL. Then, compare it to other MMOs such as WAR or LotR. Are we talking higher than any of those? Initial numbers are important to look at because it shows how many people are interested in that type of game.

I really can't remember exact numbers of a beta opening that happened about two years ago. It was positive enough that we felt comfortable with the response to justify a 15m budget and the future of the project.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread by myself and others: It was the later additions and expansions to the game that killed the fun and drove players away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

If you can tell me honestly that you think there is a big enough market out there for a PvP-only RPG, based on your knowledge and without bias, then I will concede.

If you really think even a game like GW could have survived on PvP money alone, reaching numbers anywhere near "6mil copies sold," supplying more than enough updates to keep the players happy, then I will concede. I just don't see it.

Look at a game like Unreal Tournament, Counter Strike. Sure, a completely different genre, but their massive success proves the market of competitive gamers is big enough to justify games without single player campaigns or a story element.

I don't see how the leap from that to thinking about a PvP only MMO is so huge. You are simply building an in-game world and community around that which improves networking between players, crucial to a PvP game.

Think about it this way. Would Guild Wars have anywhere near it's current population if it was PvP only? Of course not, but had they been able to focus on developing PvP the community around that would be a *lot* bigger.

Take that point and consider also that PvE content is where 90% of the development cost goes. Art is expensive and time consuming, and there is a LOT of it required for an expansive and interesting story. Not to mention quest design, QA of PvE areas... etc.

So what is your metric for success? A game as big as Guild Wars? Or a game simply profitable and filling a gap in the market? I think it would absolutely be the latter, and it would have a fair shot at the former were it done exceptionally well.

arcanemacabre · Jul 15, 2009, 10:14 AM // 10:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

When did RPGs get into this discussion? A Role Playing Game implies a story, which is obviously not describing a PvP only game. An MMO is not neccesarily an MMORPG.

RPG is what I have been talking about the whole time, not the MMO part. Character development is a huge part of GW and is also a major identifier of RPGs. I still don't see GW as an MMO, but more of an ARPG like Diablo. So, if you're talking some kind of MMO PvP genre, then I agree with you, for the most part. I just don't see how GW could have completely changed gears and transformed into something like that, eliminating all the RPG elements (not just PvE) - and if so, I seriously doubt it would have been in anyway successful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Look at a game like Unreal Tournament, Counter Strike. Sure, a completely different genre, but their massive success proves the market of competitive gamers is big enough to justify games without single player campaigns or a story element.

I don't see how the leap from that to thinking about a PvP only MMO is so huge. You are simply building an in-game world and community around that which improves networking between players, crucial to a PvP game.

That's essentially what I was saying, and that the major difference is the genre itself. Again, I was talking ORPGs, and you're talking MMOs. I agree that such a game type like an MMOFPS might have a good success rate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Think about it this way. Would Guild Wars have anywhere near it's current population if it was PvP only? Of course not, but had they been able to focus on developing PvP the community around that would be a *lot* bigger.

So what is your metric for success?

For an online game? Success is being able to keep up servers, regular updates, and a support staff. Sure, PvP in GW could be a lot bigger if they fully supported it instead of PvE. But I also feel that there's no way they could stay afloat with funding purely from that market. No way.

Avarre · Jul 15, 2009, 10:33 AM // 10:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by YunSooJin

Real men don't need hugs.

Inde tells me to play nice for the others in the forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

But I also feel that there's no way they could stay afloat with funding purely from that market. No way.

PvP players would buy unlocks. That right there is additional income from the PvP side. Furthermore, add in the potential of GW as a competitive game - 3rd Party Tournaments and sponsorships.

zwei2stein · Jul 15, 2009, 11:29 AM // 11:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

That's very nice, but it's not my point.

There has never been a well made PvP only MMO, so no case study to reference when you say that PvP only MMOs can't work. Without a case study to back you up on that claim you are either a professor of MMOlogy, or an idiot.

This is quite interesting concerning the topic of why PvP based MMOs tank: http://brokentoys.org/2009/02/19/the-mordred-problem/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

PvP players would buy unlocks.

And PvE players would buy silly stuff like storage slots or name changes, or sword that has green glow instead of yellow glow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

That right there is additional income from the PvP side. Furthermore, add in the potential of GW as a competitive game - 3rd Party Tournaments and sponsorships.

Ain't this reason PvP started to go down?

Lack of actual (3rd party) tournaments with monetary prizes?

People claim PvP went downhill after factions release ... Wasn't that also when cash-prize tournaments stopped?

Why did anet stop that anyway?

JR · Jul 15, 2009, 12:02 PM // 12:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

This is quite interesting concerning the topic of why PvP based MMOs tank: http://brokentoys.org/2009/02/19/the-mordred-problem/

I think it's more a commentary on how PvP in traditional MMOs hasn't worked out in the past.

Lopezus · Jul 15, 2009, 12:20 PM // 12:20

Quote:

Think about it this way. Would Guild Wars have anywhere near it's current population if it was PvP only? Of course not, but had they been able to focus on developing PvP the community around that would be a *lot* bigger.

Take that point and consider also that PvE content is where 90% of the development cost goes. Art is expensive and time consuming, and there is a LOT of it required for an expansive and interesting story. Not to mention quest design, QA of PvE areas... etc.

So what is your metric for success? A game as big as Guild Wars? Or a game simply profitable and filling a gap in the market? I think it would absolutely be the latter, and it would have a fair shot at the former were it done exceptionally well.

But this is hardly adressing GW, it's just about completly different game tbh. And it nagates pretty well all these points about "original" game design that was lost especially with additional campagins since Prophecies have massive PvE content - more missions, more zones then Factions and Nightfall. So all in all it means that basic GW design was faulty.

YunSooJin · Jul 15, 2009, 12:22 PM // 12:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

People claim PvP went downhill after factions release ... Wasn't that also when cash-prize tournaments stopped?

Why did anet stop that anyway?

Personally I thought PvP started going down when people began to realize Izzy had no clue what he was doing and the main function of factions (and subsequent releases) was to obliterate the subtlety within the game.

Xenomortis · Jul 15, 2009, 12:27 PM // 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by YunSooJin

the main function of factions (and subsequent releases) was to obliterate the subtlety within the game.

Given I have only been playing the game for just over 2 years now (not long before the release of EotN), I do not fully know what Factions did to "obliterate" these things. Is this where the power creep really started? Or is was it something else that it did?

Could somebody just clarify for me?

Avarre · Jul 15, 2009, 12:31 PM // 12:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenomortis

Given I have only been playing the game for just over 2 years now (not long before the release of EotN), I do not fully know what Factions did to "obliterate" these things. Is this where the power creep really started? Or is was it something else that it did?

Could somebody just clarify for me?

Tossing more classes and skills into the game kicked all the established balance high into the air. This wasn't helped by the one-dimensionality of the new classes at release - Sins are teleport combospikers, Rits lay a thousand spirits and nothing ever dies.

That said, the impact of Factions was far less than the impact of NF. The GWFC wasn't all that bad, and in the days before NF, the meta had largely become accustomed to the rit and assassin.

YunSooJin · Jul 15, 2009, 12:45 PM // 12:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenomortis

Given I have only been playing the game for just over 2 years now (not long before the release of EotN), I do not fully know what Factions did to "obliterate" these things. Is this where the power creep really started? Or is was it something else that it did?

Could somebody just clarify for me?

teleporting around = positioning is less important = less nuanced game

not a big deal in it of itself but I think it detracted from the game.. simply cause people who carried teleport skills no longer had to worry about their positioning, which could make or break teams in matches. Oh, damage compression was also a bad idea.. you can only take it so far before it begins to become a problem.

NF just had immense power creep in the form of:
paragons - unstrippable buffs, very strong buffs (initially anyways) I mean we're talking about HA teams with paragons that COULD NOT be kicked off even with two teams on them.
dervishes - every hit removes an enchantment? wut? no conditions no matter what? etc etc
lots of new skills that helped make GW less smart (LoD anyone?) Oh gotta love eurospike.. that was just a proud moment in the history of GW

After NF's beta or whatever, dervishes and paragons were massively nerfed. But even AFTER that, they had to nerfed even further once the game actually came out. All in all pretty nasty stuff. I mean, it was fun playing retardedly overpowered classes, but that's just for the first few weeks. After that you start to wonder.. when you open Pandora's box, can you ever hope for things to return to normal?

Oh and Izzy didn't have a clue. Or maybe no normal human could have a clue with the skills and crap that had been introduced.

Xenomortis · Jul 15, 2009, 01:01 PM // 13:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by YunSooJin

teleporting around = positioning is less important = less nuanced game

not a big deal in it of itself but I think it detracted from the game.. simply cause people who carried teleport skills no longer had to worry about their positioning, which could make or break teams in matches. Oh, damage compression was also a bad idea.. you can only take it so far before it begins to become a problem.

Well the broken concept of the assassin in a game like Guild Wars was a bad thing to introduce.
I understand Rits were quite rapidly nerfed though, so surely they had a small impact (only a few spirits and weapon spells).

The impact of NF and its powercreep is much more obvious though.

Mordakai · Jul 15, 2009, 02:47 PM // 14:47

If "winning" is the only way to have fun in competitive activities, then only half of the people in the activity are having fun. (ie, there is only one winner).

Which is fine, that's what makes it competitive.

The goal of "casual" play is it should be fun all the time for casual players. Of course, one person's idea of fun is different than others, but my point was this discussion really isn't about PvP and PvE.

This is about whether GW2 can appeal to both the casual and competitive player.

JR · Jul 15, 2009, 04:01 PM // 16:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

If "winning" is the only way to have fun in competitive activities, then only half of the people in the activity are having fun. (ie, there is only one winner).

That would make sense if everyone only ever played one match, and then uninstalled the game.

Are you trying to tell me that being a PvE player is fun all the time? Even when you are stood in Kamadan ID1 trying to trade?

Fril Estelin · Jul 15, 2009, 04:17 PM // 16:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Are you trying to tell me that being a PvE player is fun all the time?

Why would that shock you?

Quote:

Even when you are stood in Kamadan ID1 trying to trade?

It's called afk for a reason.

JR, look at Mordakai's post from a bigger perspective: just imagine newcomers, challenged by elders which have tons of experience and knowledge. The prospect of having fun for a new PvPer is looking bleak (at best!) if it's only about winning. In particular if the next hundreds of hours of gameplay where you learn through trial/error/correct coincide with the slow death of the current PvP community.

IMHO your attitude and the attitude of other "PvPers" (it's always questionable in which boxes we're putting people) illustrates that it's NOT ONLY about player skills or willingness to be "real men". There's a broken social link between different kinds of players, an issue that wasn't help by Anet's CR throughout the years.

Nerel · Jul 15, 2009, 05:19 PM // 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Inde tells me to play nice for the others in the forum.

PvP players would buy unlocks. That right there is additional income from the PvP side. Furthermore, add in the potential of GW as a competitive game - 3rd Party Tournaments and sponsorships.

While off topic to this thread in general, I would be interested in knowing more about the economics of the big tournaments of yesteryear, how much of the prize value was shouldered by NCsoft, and what was their cost once you factor in advertising and transport/accommodation for hosting the finals?

And no, I'm not trying to suggest that the PvP side of things is expensive, or not worth supporting... I realize that the draw of these events DOES attract gamers, shift units and makes for some wide spread publicity.

I'd be curious about any links relating to the matter folks have to share.

Steps_Descending · Jul 15, 2009, 05:23 PM // 17:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

When did RPGs get into this discussion? A Role Playing Game implies a story, which is obviously not describing a PvP only game. An MMO is not neccesarily an MMORPG.

You have a point there JR, but in video game terms (and to an extend in games in general), a RPG is also understood as game mecanic archetype. That generally means a form of statistic, a limited set of predefined abilities (fonctionnal magic for those that will understand), combats ''controlled'' by the computer (the dice system) and customisation (the gear).
Note that level is ultimately optional, but there are very few games where they aren't there one way or another.

If we talk like that, a PvP ORPG with a light storyline can exist. I'll admit I started in early-faction era but what I,ve heard of early-life GW was probably one of the closest example I can think of.
Low level cap
Light history (enough to get people attached with the game) used as a road to PvP (not exactly a success for that last part).
Competitive gear is easy to get : relatively, but imagine with today's system.
Little randomness : most random numbers are 75%, a few were 50 (I think there was 1) and blind might as well be 100%.

It didn't went that well, but what if we'd have had a softer PvPlearning curve. Perhaps more Pvp-dependant end-game (we only had UW/FoW and non-pvp post-droks who can be seen as end-game if PvP starts at Tomb), maybe with an entry requirement of having Rank X.
And instead of the not-so-skill>time rank we have, perhaps something closer to *gasp* WoW's arena system : win/loss ratio more important than number of wins/matches.
And some smarter balancing, maybe removing second proffs for later balance of when the skill pool grows.

I'm not saying such a game would be the best game ever, but it could probably live at ease.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Why would that shock you?

Because if something is always fun, it gets progressively less fun in the long run.
The fun of PvP comes when you can win at least half the matches. PvP matches are fun when you win after being tired of losing. Ups and downs are the fun of every game.

edit: That being said : I'm off to read Broken Toys