PvP in World of Warcraft, Again
I just had the most ridiculous "discussion" ever in general chat in World of Wacraft. I was killed 4 times in a row in Hillsbrad Fields by several players 20 to 30 levels above me (I was a level 23). Is there anything wrong with those players killing me on a whim? No, certainly not. It's the PvP server and players will do whatever they can do. But it propted me to ask this question in general chat: "I've been killed several times in a row by high level players where I had no chance because of the level difference. What is the point of the PvP server, again?"
Several people started saying nasty things to me, so I clarified that I was not criticizing the server, nor did I want to leave. I am actually really asking what the point is. Surely it's not the constant high vs. low level fights because no skill is involved and the outcome is determined. I postulated that perhaps once you reach the cap, there is lots of meaningful pvp (at level 60 vs. level 60). I expected answers such as "yes that's true, and also there are these other good things..."
But no. I think one person attempted an answer, but only came up with a single sentence saying that it increases the danger of the area, and therefore the challenge and the fun. That's a start, but 8 other people answered questions I didn't ask at all, that they assume I was asking.
"Do you think level 60s on the other side should hold your hand and give you candy?" one person said. "Uh no, that is not what I asked. Of course they should do what they do, the question is what is the point of the pvp server? I'm not saying there is no point, I want to enjoy it."
Then people said it was silly to criticize a system that isn't done yet. "I never criticized anything, I'm actually honestly asking what the point is."
"It sounds like you are criticizing with such sarcastic comments."
"I have said nothing at all sarcrastic, or with hidden meaning. It is a real question."
Then someone trash talked me for being "just a lowbie" because I'm only level 23. I guess they didn't take into account my 17 other characters (not kidding) over the last 11 months.
It was all really quite amazing. These players were all so ridiculously defensive, that they took my question as a disguised attack, even though it was actually a real question. I was hoping to use their insights to defend the seemingly pointless state of the pvp server...but even the pvp players themselves could hardly offer one shred of explanation to the sad state of affairs.
Before you go writing me letters about this, you should realize that I am Mr. Competition, and that there's a 99% chance that I'm more interested in player vs. player conflict and that I'm a better player than every single one of those fools who just insulted me. But...the kind of competition I've seen so far has been totally uninteresting.
I think a good answer on their part might have been, "Level 60 vs. 60 pvp is meaningful. Other equal level pvp is meaningful, and you'll be more likely to find it another zone, such as Ashenvale (someone did say this, though not in such a friendly way). High vs. low pvp where one side has a 0% chance of winning is not meaningful, and will be greatly reduced by the upcoming honor system that discourages such things."
A strange thing has occurred to me, though. I actually think there will be more meaningful pvp on the NON-pvp server than the pvp server! To lay the groundwork for this seemingly crazy arguement, let's first look at the things that will be the same on pvp and non-pvp.
1) Both systems allow consentual duels between people in your faction (yeah, yeah I know that's not "real" pvp to most. I'm just listing the things that are the same.)
2) In both systems, the starting areas (where you are for about level 1 to 20) do not allow you to be attacked unless you voluntarily do something to turn your pvp flag on.
3) Both systems will feature "battlegrounds," areas marked as pvp only that will feature big battles between horde and alliance. You can earn "honor points" by participating in this kind of pvp. The better your faction (horde or alliance) does, the more honor points go to your side, and in turn, to you.
4) In both systems, you can attack all enemy NPC's including quest givers, merchants, and travel-enabling NPC's. After doing this, your pvp flag is on and you can be attacked by anyone on the other side. (On the pvp server, you could be attacked regardless.)
So what's different?
1) On the non-pvp server, after you go to an enemy town and attack some npc's, you won't be able to attack random people checking their in-game mail or sitting around afk. You will only be able to fight real combatants...people who have decided to defend the town.
2) On the pvp server, you can attack and constantly be attacked, by people of such radically different level that you have no chance.
3) On the pvp server, you can attack and constantly be attacked by people who happen to be a close enough level to you, that a meaningful fight might occur.
People interested in 1) and 2) have cloaked themselves in a false veil of "competition." They are not seeking actual competition, but instead mindless fun. Mindless fun is fine, but don't pretend you are doing anything remotely interesting or "skillful." Now, 3) actually is interesting. That's what it's really all about. But if you take all the pvp interactions that occur on a given day on the pvp server and the non-pvp server, the percentage of interactions that falls into category 3 (interesting pvp between similar level enemies) must be embarassingly low. The percentage on the non-pvp server I would expect to be much higher, because people are consensually entering combat, and will presumably tend to do that when there is a remote chance that an interesting battle might happen. They would tend not to do it when the battle is so lopsided, that even entering into it is a farce, and waste of time.
There is definitely hope that the honor system will save the day on the pvp server. Even then, though, I have to believe that more interesting pvp would happen in a more consensual system, just by the nature of it. Or at the *very* least, a much better ratio of "real pvp" to "pointless, predetermined" pvp would happen under the more consensual system. I'll reserve judgment until the honor system is unveiled, but here is my current plan:
I will play on the non-pvp server (pve, aka the standard ruleset). I will engage in pvp at times when it's interesting, which includes raids on enemy towns and participation in battlegrounds. And I will start a guild to do this. Hopefully the people in the guild will be at least one of the following: a) civil and interested in game design, perhaps even game designers themselves, and b) are incredibly, ruthlessly good at games. Open Beta starts very soon. So who's with me?
--Sirlin
October 25th, 2004 at 3:50 am
games with leveling up = teh suck. i think the idea of leveling up is just stupid for anything competitive. instead of falling back on skills you’ve built yourself, people tend to rely on skills availible to them but not others. imagine if street fighter had the initial d card system, and you could “level up” your characters. this would be beyond lame. levels = weak.
October 25th, 2004 at 2:51 pm
You perfectly summed up my opinions on PvP, Siriln. Thanks.
BTW, have you checked out Guild Wars? Looks like the majority of the game is focused competitive, “interesting” as you put it, PvP.
October 25th, 2004 at 3:01 pm
I am interested in Guild Wars, yes. I will try it out this coming weekend when they are finally having an open beta event.
–Sirlin
October 25th, 2004 at 5:48 pm
Awesome! Be sure to post your character’s name so your adoring fans can meet you in-game =)
October 28th, 2004 at 7:16 am
Hey Sirlin, I really enjoy your stuff, but you haven’t updated your man site for like… a year! Are you letting it go? Or has there just been a lack of updates to post?
Alex Himself
www.virtualalex.com
October 28th, 2004 at 7:38 pm
Can’t wait for the open beta, and fish!
October 29th, 2004 at 12:29 am
Dear Sirlin,
I read your arguments and i agree with them.
Yet i still hope the upcoming honor system will be tweaked to allow for a more level field of competition on the PvP server.
Personaly, i don’t mind how many levels my opponents are above me, my guild bypasses such problems simply by numbers, communication and group tactics, but as you said, it is neither “fun” to kill players so far below you in level to not properly be able to defend themselves nor fighting against players so high above you in levels, that a fight is pointless to start with.
Should you, despite the system change your mind and decide to play on a PvP server regardless, i would love to either fight alongside you or against you (and if possible your guild).
I always loved to fight high caliber players in a true test of skills. Should you decide to play on a non-PvP server instead, i will be saddened about it. But time goes on.
All the best wishess to you and continue your awesome articles.
Sincerely,
Jason Bethge
October 29th, 2004 at 4:44 am
Addendum:
After re-reading your article several times now, a question corssed my mind:
Will a non-PvP server cater to your needs?
Your logic, is (as always) flawless, but you seem to neglect one important outside factor: the players.
On the PvE servers, you rarely find PvPers. Mostly casual PvPers. But even them are only PFF players.
So, while the potential is greater for interesting PvP, i doubt the level of skill and the competition will be anywhere near your level.
That is why i was hesitating to go to a PvE server and that is also why i still am hestitating.
I believe, that on a PvP server you will find more PTW players, thus more competition, thus more “fun”.
What use is a PvP Battlefield for a person like you, if you will find noone able to match you level of skill and knowledge?
Don’t you think, that the level of competition on a PvP server is more suited to your needs?
sincerely,
Jason Bethge
October 29th, 2004 at 10:59 am
Anonymous: You can find me in any game by looking for the world “Sirlin” somewhere in my name, lol. (Unless I suck so bad that I need to hide.)
Alex Himself: I did take a year off to write my book. My manuscript sits around on my couch waiting for me to find the energy to edit it. It’s just the general laziness that comes with having a job and not feeling like working when you come home. Not to mention wasting way too much time on World of Warcraft. Maybe I should just quit that game altogether. Thought it’s my style to go deeply into something for a year or two, then write about it later.
Jason: You might be right that the honor system will save the day. I’m totally open to that possibility. If the chips fall correctly and planets align, maybe we can play together.
Also, I thought about the difference in players and their skills on the pvp vs. pve servers, too. It’s a good point. Maybe that’s a limitation I’d be willing to live with. I guess I don’t find the “constant threat of danger” fun. I don’t really like being killed while checking my mail or while trying out what a new spell does. It’s not that I don’t like competition, but think of fighting games for a minute. I’ve been a pretty top player, but I’ve never been attacked in training mode, lol. I play to win only when I’m ready to. I also still have serious reservations about any level based game with competition. I know there’s lots of arguements about “it’s not that bad. skill is still involved.” Sure. But a much better model is one where everyone starts with the same materials the first minute they play, not after 100 hours. Maybe it isn’t worth the effort to maximize my opponent’s skill by choosing the pvp server (if it has other aspects I hate) because World of Warcraft in general is not a top notch competitive game? It’s really fun (it is!) but it’s no chess. It’s no guilty gear. It’s no counter-strike. It’s no warcraft3, even, when it comes to level playing field and a skill-based rather than time-based premise.
I don’t know anymore…
–Sirlin
October 30th, 2004 at 8:24 pm
Altogether your argument is a sound one, except for two things.
Firstly, you assume that people will willingly enter duels. Problem is, unless there are some MAJOR incentives, they wont. If you have ever played anarchy online, for example, that game wast mostly PvE, with battlegrounds style PvP, with 1.5(one of them was mostly abandoned) battle arenas which could be entered for consensual PvP and a couple of ‘gank’ zones. Even though nothing was to be lost by dying with the exception of the 3 minute ‘recovery time’ the amount of 1 v 1 pvp was next to nil.
The thing is, why should a player enter PvP, spend copious amounts of battle supplies(potions and the like) to get absolutely nothing if they win, and a long corpse run if they lose. If they win, they wasted 10 gold worth of supplies. If they lose they wasted 10 gold worth of supplies, and been forced to do a long corpse run. Its a lose-lose situation.
This brings me to another point: will they lose the battle? Anarchy Online for example featured several classes in an RPS format, where a matchup of 2 different classes would almost always have the same result. World of Warcraft seems to be going in the same direction. If a rock class runs into a paper class, for example, why should the rock class bother to enter combat, when they know damn well they are going to lose? The only combat you’ll ever see is between two people of the same class.
Now the second thing I see wrong in your argument is the lack of strategy involved in dueling. Ambushing a person when they are fighting a monster, for example, is strategy(even if highly cheap). Gang-banging someone is also strategy(also very cheap). With duel-flags these strategies are eliminated, all you have is 1v1 arena style matchups. Which not only gets boring after a while, it also reinforces the ‘rock class beats scissors class’ concept. If the scissor-rogue can sneak up on a rock-warrior while he’s fighting a ‘bigbaddragon’, thus evening the playing field, isnt that a good thing? If a group of low level ‘papers’ can gang bang a high-level ’scissor’, isnt that a good thing?
Another strategy that will be abolished by this is the ‘range advantage’. A melee class will always make a point of starting the duel at melee range, so most ranged classes are pretty much out of luck. The weapons/spells now have to be balanced without any regard to range, and the ‘range’ attribute on weapons will become as meaningful as the ‘hair color’ attribure on characters.
Storming a town and devastating whoever happens to be inside is also strategy. If someone charges into your house, kills your family members, loots the safe, then goes after you, while you’ve been sitting there reading a newspaper all along, would you have a right to complain about griefing? Why do you think that reading mail while your town is under attack is any more excusable?
October 31st, 2004 at 1:29 am
Quick comment on the original post. For anyone who has played PK MUDs, there are quite a few obvious answers to the PvP system which usually is to make PK available only to certain level ranges of character +10/-10 levels or something. Other answers, but I don’t feel like going into too much detail other than to say that other multiplayer worlds have had similar issues, and that there is something researchable if you choose to do so.
October 31st, 2004 at 6:03 pm
I have to agree on certain points of your post. On the other hand I have to disagree on other points.
A pvp system without risk or reward is pretty pointless in itself. I also agree that a predetermined pvp fight is also pretty pointless from a competitive point of view. This is one of the main problems of WoW pvp, the agressor always has an incredible advantage to any given fight, this results in fights almost being predetermined depending on who surprises who.
Still I prefer the PvP server to the PvE server since it allows me to interact with the opposing faction on a whole other level, while “ganking” other players isn’t that interesting on a competitive level it’s very satisfying to be able to fight the opposing team at will, to feel that at any given moment there can be a fight that will need all my attention since I will be at a disadvantage if surprised.
Closer to the cap the “ganking” goes down alot, since if you play to the maximum of your capability you wont be surprised at often and all classes stand a reasonable chance of beating someone their own level. If you are attacked first by someone your own level you are basically the only person to blame since you are the one not paying enough attention. It is what finally drives me in these games, the feeling of nervousness and the anger at myself whenever I get killed, since the fix for it is basically up to me. To level faster, to react faster, to gain more items, to lead my party better etc. I got angry with myself when I got ganked in Hillsbrad, since I didn’t hide well enough, didn’t level fast enough and didn’t pay enough attention to avoid the people wanting to kill me.
The problem is that since there is no risk involved people will not stop coming back time and time again, and that is finally what I think might kill this game. Without any risk involved any reward becomes meaningless.
-Myrdin
November 1st, 2004 at 8:10 am
Sorry to hijack again, but the WPE is over now, Siriln. How’d you like it? Did you get to do any Guild vs. Guild PvP?
November 1st, 2004 at 11:48 am
Like the first guy said.. this kinda of game sucks big time, you cant win you cant lose (yeah yeah you can die, maybe lose some levels, lose some money or itens or whatever)its like everbody who plays this kinda of game dont care about the fact you are protect against any loss and so everybody can be happy and everbody can “win”
But about you dying a lot… hehe
i dont know how WoW works but shoud be like the other mrpmorg so try to walk with a group( party) and gang up on the they also or at least they wont kill you so easily ..but im sure u already know that :D
Just my useless adivice… cya ;)
November 8th, 2004 at 12:23 pm
Superb article. I’d have to say that the most noticable thing about the article is that it’s authored by someone who’s mature and composed, which I’m sure you’d find to be just the opposite in the case of those who 1) flame or 2) go around killing people who have no possibility to defend themselves.
In the spirit of fun (for everyone), I agree with the PvE argument, and such I will play on a PvE server. I’m quite pleased that Blizzard has given us the option. I only hope that others who would be joining the PvP servers with hopes of fun PvP will read this and take into account the points listed. If after reading they still decide they want to be running around with a bunch of fools, that’s up to them. Hopefully the PvP server will “contain” the griefers etc. and let the rest of us play in peace (when we want to, of course).
= SiG =
November 10th, 2004 at 3:10 pm
Well, this is the inherent flaw in PvP…especially in games that don’t focus on PvP.
The best way I have found to counteract this is to play with mature players…these can usually be found on RP servers. There are always some bad apples, but you will find more interesting battles and scenarios on an RP server than on either Normal or PVP.
November 11th, 2004 at 12:46 am
I’m not trying to be sarcastic here, but if you coverted your MMORPG PvP comments to a similar themed post about fighting games and posted it on nearly any serious or “hardcore” fighting game board, you would probably be hammered with comments about how you need to learn to play to win.
You mentioned the responses you got with your questions, which are similar to the responses that casual or even concerned fighting game players will get if they complain about game design exploits or simply getting crushed by the local experts without a chance of winning.
You even make your own comment about the mindset that people get into, going for guaranteed (crushing) wins. Which is exactly the same as the mindset of some of those “play to win”ers who give no quarter even if the opponent has never played before or is a five year old child, and will cite “Play to Win” as their mantra. (Often while also citing their desire for anyone who can’t match them to go away and never play them again.)
Yes, there are differences. WoW has situations that are truely guaranteed victories, but that isn’t so far a stretch from matches that might be 99.9% guaranteed. And Blizzard can theoretically actually address game issues, which doesn’t happen in fighters, at least generally beyond certain arcade tweak releases. In that fashion, what is a “suck it up and learn to play” situation in a fighter could be a “petition for a change” situation in an MMORPG. And MMORPGs do allow a degree of social fix, where players can unite to enforce (or force) their own laws, but that upsets some the same way that creating fighting game laws can (ranging from the generally accepted like banning a clearly broken character to the hard to fairly enforce or even define like banning infinites to the downright disputed like banning throws).
Just my own thoughts upon reading your thoughts.
November 12th, 2004 at 7:08 am
Missed one important difference between PvP and non-PvP servers. PvP servers have contested territories, where you can go in, kill all the enemy forces and NPCs and the territory then becomes yours and your own NPC forces replace the old enemy NPC forces, shopkeeps, etc. So you actually an take and hold territory, expand the Alliance or Horde lands, and have battles that have some goal other than just kicking the other guy’s butt. That goal being territorial conquest and control.
November 19th, 2004 at 2:49 pm
In your article you raised the question “What is the point of a PvP server?”
I am not a World of Warcraft player, but I do actively engage in PvP in several other games.
What I have found is that even if you are only half the level of someone else, you can still defeat them. The trick is to realise that if you encounter him, your opponent is going to beat the living daylight out of you. So that is not the way to tackle the big ones.
Instead, you need to find players like yourself. Preferably around your level or above it, and bond together in a group.
This is not as simple as it sounds: First you need to find other people interested in working with you. Even if you find a group, many more challenges await.
You are the best player, so you will have to get yourself into a position of leadership. For this you will need to win the favour of the others and prove that you are indeed the best player. Sometimes that may even mean giving up your leadership to another, if they are better suited. :)
With your powerbase established, you need to gather resources to equip your newly built army and make sure they can be recognised as such. Being easy to identify might sound stupid, but once you have established yourself, the mere sight of your guildtag will instill fear into the hearts of your foes, causing them to flee before you like the dogs they are :P
While none of your team individually will be able to take on the level 60, the lot of you can make him think twice before challenging a member of your guild again.
To me the challenge, the point if you will, of PvP is the human aspect. To gather, organise and motivate a team to fight under your leadership and prove that the whole can be greater then the sum of it’s parts.
November 21st, 2004 at 11:37 pm
The point of a PvP server is that it is the best simulation for the fantasy setting and that it minimizes abuses of the game system.
High levels being able to slaughter low levels is meaningful in that it allows people to control territory and to assist their lower levelled allies when those allies are attacked.
“1) On the non-pvp server, after you go to an enemy town and attack some npc’s, you won’t be able to attack random people checking their in-game mail or sitting around afk. You will only be able to fight real combatants…people who have decided to defend the town.”
The problem here is that people who do not attack you can do things like heal those who are attacking you, spy on you, etc. In addition you can remove competition for an area’s resources. Any time there are enemies around that you cannot kill, they can abuse that immunity to do things that they should not be able to do. You should be able to kill scouts and support personnell and those who are competing for your side’s resources. You should also be able to kill irritating little noobs who come up to you and start insulting you.
The PvP game on a PvP server is much bigger in scale and more complex than simply one on one fights between equal levels. It also makes more sense.
November 22nd, 2004 at 8:07 pm
You really are missing the point of the PVP. Just because you got ganked by some people higher level than you, doesn’t mean that PVP isn’t meaningful if its not level 23 vs level 23. Think about this from a roleplaying standpoint, since it is a roleplaying game (and moreso a roleplaying game than any other MMO out there). I played beta too and PVP was one of the most intriguing elements of the whole experience
Yes, it sucks to be jumped by people higher level than you, but like everyone has been telling you thats the whole point of “contested” zones. From the RP standpoing I was mentioning, obviously if I’m a Gnome and I’m wandering around Ashenvale forest, and I end up too far South, chances are some Tauren and Orcs are going to notice I’m there, and chances are I’ll be eliminated. Real World Example: In the trenches of World War I, I don’t think if a single Nazi soldier was pokin around “no-man’s land” between the trenches, the allied soldiers would hold their fire, just because hes all alone. Right? Of course they wouldn’t, hes an enemy combatant, and he took that risk for whatever reason and paid the price.
I can see this complaint in a game where you lose something meaningful, or tough to replace for dying, but you really lost nothing from dying, and it just means “Hey in order to do this, I need some help from my buddies. I’ll try exploring near enemy territory later, when I’ve got some help.”
I understand your frustration with being ganked, it happens, its real and thats what RP is supposed to be about. It sucks that you have to deal with argumentative people in game, but remember, it is a game, there will be kids playing it, and they will argue with a brick wall.
November 25th, 2004 at 3:26 pm
Its funny cause all these pvpers think they are bad killing someone with a much lower level but they wont even play counterstrike source because they will get their ass kicked, the same with chess.
November 26th, 2004 at 11:53 pm
Ok, I was baited into responding by the person who incorrectly stated that on a pve server you can’t attack people who are casting support spells on your enemies. This is false. If someone has their pvp flag on (like when they are defending their town) and you heal them or buff them or something, your pvp flag is turned on also. I believe it will stay on for 5 minutes after your last pvp action, including support actions on other pvp flagged players.
Next point, someone mentioned role playing and the realism that pvp adds to role playing. Well, I’m glad you enjoy that but role playing and realism are two things I don’t even care a tiny bit about. Sorry.
Beyond that, I don’t know what to say since the comments have been all over the board in this thread. Those defending pvp and the non-consensual combat that goes along with it…I think I see why they enjoy it. But from my point of a view, a level-based game where people have large material differences in power when they enter a fight…just isn’t a good competitive game. It may still be a good game that is fun, but not a good competitive game.
Someone mentioned that if I posted these things about a fighting game, people would tell me to play to win. Well, if you accept the premise of pvp in an mmorpg as being a competitive endeavor you want to do well at…then you should do everything in your power to win (well, too bad you can’t actually “win,” but I guess that’s another discussion). You should absolutely smash all the newbies you can. You should harass the enemy and stop them from questing. You should get teams of rogues to sneak into town and kill unsuspecting people in the inn. Take no prisoners and play to win.
But there is a big, big difference between the premise of an mmorpg and the premise of nearly every competitive game there is. In Street Fighter, Starcraft, Chess, and Magic: the Gathering, both players enter the combat with the same power-level available to them. There’s nothing legitimate to complain about when you lose, other than your own lack of skill. The uneven play field in an mmorpg is a very different beast altogether. So here’s my response: if you suggested to the gaming communities who play Street Fighter, Starcraft, Chess, and Magic that in tournaments, you should be able to start with more resources than the opponent if you have been playing the game longer, and that you should be able to play against players who are afk…I don’t think that would go over so well either. Maybe if you put 100 hours into Starcraft, you should start the match with a few extra peons and a shuttle with a reaver in it. Or in Street Fighter, let me start with a level 60 Ryu against your level 40 Ryu. It’s still possible for you to win, after all. Or Magic vetertains could start with 10 cards in hand instead of 7. I mean, it’s not *that* big of an advantage. You can still win if you only start with 7 cards, right? Yes you could, but rewarding play-time rather than skill is so counter to the nature of skill-based competitive games that it’s just an absurd thing to do. Even rewarding skill is absurd when the reward is allowing one player to start the fight with a material advantage. When someone wins a tournament (with skill, not just by putting in more time) imagine if I suggested that he be allowed to start the next fight with a material advantage over his opponent. If I accepted that premise, then I would play to win under it. I’m just surprised that so many people (all of whom grew up with mmorpgs, it seems) want to defend this premise.
World of Warcraft is a pretty fun game when you team up with friends and fight monsters and get the uber loot. It’s a decent game when you duel people near your level. It’s even a decent game in group on group pvp of somewhat similar level. But I have no illusions of it being a “real” competitive game, so I’m not willing to put up with all the grief on the pvp servers in order to get more competition out of an inherently bad competitive game. I’d rather enjoy the “carebear” elements of the game sometimes, and then participate in the competitive elements only when reasonably non-retarded situations present themselves.
There are plenty of other much better pure competitive games. I recommend Guilty Gear XX #reloaded, Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution, Magic: The Gathering, Chess, and Go. If you really must play a group-on-group competitive game rather than 1on1, then I’d recommend Counter-strike. Does anyone seriously think World of Warcraft (fun game as it is) can hold a candle to any of those games as a pure competitive game?
–Sirlin
November 27th, 2004 at 9:30 am
Dear Sirlin,
I enjoy reading your articles and posts and have benefited a lot from your insights into things.
However, I believe that in the case of PvP WoW, you have fallen into a trap you have pointed out yourself in other games. You are a scrub.
You have created your own game with its own rules inside the game of PvP WoW which is limited to two characters lining up in an arena and fighting each other one on one.
PvP WoW consists not only of a battle between two characters, but rather of building up your character, gathering xp, weapons, armour and perfecting your (character’s) skills.
To compare with Starcraft, basically you are saying that Starcraft is only the battle between units, not the building of a base, choosing the right time and place to build an outpost and teching.
Sure, beating up a lvl 20 with a lvl 60 is cheap. So is blocking all the time or using only throws in Streetfighter.
In the game of PvP WoW, the more time you put into your character, the higher level it becomes and the stronger you become. These are the rules of the game.
Of course you might argue that the other player does not have more skill then you in playing the game then you as a player, because he only wins as he has better resources.
Again, a scrub statement, right from your own article. Your opponent is performing “cheap tactics” i.e. being higher level in the start because he spent more time leveling his character. And you feel that by some measure you are unable to win against such an opponent.
Yet you have exactly the same abilities as he does. You too can make your character very high level and then beat him up when he is lower then you. But then again, that would be “cheap” wouldn’t it?
I could go on, but I think I have made my point:
PvP WoW is not a lineup of two characters in an arena. That is a game you have created yourself, within the game of PvP WoW. The rules you have created for it of what is fair and what is “cheap” do not exist in the game.
There is leveling, gathering equipment, and choosing skills. PvP WoW is more then one on one arena’s just like starcraft is more then two groups of units batteling.
I am inviting you to re-examine the game of PvP WoW and see the game as it is, not just see the game that you have created yourself where some tactics are “honourable” and some are “cheap”. Scrub ^_^
November 30th, 2004 at 12:13 pm
Nice try calling me a scrub.
The thing you are missing is that there are games that are fundamentally retarded in this world, and you can’t call someone a scrub for not playing to win those games. A game has to be based on decent principles in the first place to take it seriously.
Different games require different skills. Virtua Fighter requires unusually high “yomi.” Magic: the Gathering requires unusually high “valuation/appraisal” skills. World of Warcraft pvp requires a lot of retarded things. One of these things is that it rewards time spent. If you had to play Ryu for 100 hours before getting your fireball, it would still be the same game in the end, but it’s such a retarded hurdle that I wouldn’t like game either. But at least then you’d be be playing a game against opponents who are not afk.
There are so many flaws in treating World of Warcraft as a “real competitive game” that it just sounds absurd. Many competitive games are available in the world that offer fights where both players have access to even resources, that don’t require 200 hours of leveling up, that don’t have the concept of fighting very uneven fights all the time. Yes, if you are playing to win then you seek out times when you have more people than the enemy AND the enemy is cought unaware. You would definitely do that to “win” (well you can’t win, but we’ll look past that). But…isn’t that a very sad competitive game?
Surely you must AT LEAST see that there are some very bad competitive games in this world and that in those games, “the only winning move is not to play.” So the very fact that someone doesn’t play a game doesn’t make them a scrub. To qualify for that, I think the game has to be non-retarded in the first place, so that’s what you should be arguing when you talk about World of Warcraft pvp (good luck!). I also don’t play KOF, because it’s a piece of trash, not beause I’m a scrub.
–Sirlin
December 1st, 2004 at 10:47 am
A great Unreal Tournament player has spent many hours playing the game, perfecting his aim, tactical insight and ability to outmanouver his opponent.
He will decimate any new player, because he spent 200, if not 2.000 hours playing the game and they spent very little time.
If the strongest Unreal Tournament player switches to Enemy Territory, they will still be very good, because the game requires many of the same skills. They will need a while to adapt, but the basic principles are the same.
The difference with WoW is that WoW generally gives you character skill, which cannot be carried over to other games.
I think this is your main problem with PvP WoW. You are skilled in many games, but WoW does not reward your natural ability and the insight you have from other games.
In fact, the people that mercilessly slaughter you need not have ANY skill whatsoever.
This is not to say that WoW requires no skill. WoW requires you to plan your characters development carefully in advance, use spells and abilities at the right moment and gather the best equipment with the limited resources of gold and time you have.
But a 60th level character, no matter how poorly planned, will beat the crap out of a level 20.
Thus, your personal ability is left unrewarded while the whining 6 year old that spend 200 hours more then you on the game laughs in your face at your pathetic attempts to damage his uber character. This sucks for anyone, no matter how much they love WoW.
World of Warcraft does not reward your previous tactical insight. It completely ignores how fast your hand-eye coordination is. It does not care how good of a Street Fighter you are.
World of Warcraft rewards endurance. Endurance to get through the lower levels and rise above the lower level players, the scrub if you will.
When you are beaten up by level 60s four times in a row, your endurance is drained quickly. Some people carry on reguardlessly. Others do not.
You choose how you play your game. Nobody should tell you to play it differently. If you want to limit yourself to certain small factors of the game, this is your choice. Nobody is stopping you or making you play it differently.
But your conclusion that you are not a scrub for doing this, but rather that the game is retarted only proves my point.
Just looking at the amount of people willing to sell out hard cash for this game, and the ratings given by various authorities, the game is obviously not retarted or a piece of trash.
You have shown me new insights in various games. In this case however, I cannot come to any other conclusion then that in PvP WoW you are a scrub. No shame in that. I am a scrub in many games. Nobody is perfect, including myself.
I hope that even though I feel you are missing things in this game, you understand that I respect you and that I value your views as they have shown me new insights into different things.
I hope to read more of your posts in the future, perhaps about a different game you like better?
December 1st, 2004 at 1:17 pm
I would say that I agree with your commentary Sirlin, in many aspects, but as many have brought up, perhaps you overlook what some people find as “enjoyable.” I am a college student and have been playing MMORPGs since the start of UO, all the way through to today. Another thing I want to point out, is that I personally have not played WoW, but have read almost everything there is to read on it (hence why I am in this forum in the first place.)
I have extreme respect for people like you who do not enjoy the “gang-bangs” or the lvl 60 vs. a lvl 30 match-ups. I am not one for it, but I will say that I enjoy the feeling of narrow escape.
One of the games I enjoyed the most was Ultima Online when it first came out, before they made the two difference worlds that they have now. The reason I enjoyed it so much was because I actually had to worry. Pickpocketers at the bank were always looking for an easy nab at some gold, and groups of social outcasts rode their horses upon unsuspecting miners to slaughter and pillage. To me, the way that the PvP server works makes me feel like I am “in the game.†It gives me a sense that my character is actually “alive†or in some sort of reality where (pardon my words) “Shit happens.†Not everything is as easy and simple as non-PvP servers give the impression of, and I personally like that feeling of “reality.†(ironic that I use that word, I know. But I think you get the picture.)
Now, as far as your question of “Why is there a PvP server.†I would say that there is a PvP server to give people the actual sense of a natural community. Where crime occurs, and is even sometimes abundant. Where those highly skills in the art of assassination are able to succumb to their whims. As well, it gives a larger sense of community, where those who are against gang-bangs and “over leveled†duels can band together and fight against and protect the innocent.
I love being a lvl 30 rogue (DAoC), running across the frontier for a quest, only to be opposed by a band of lvl 50+, then quickly using my sneak and hiding in brush or behind a tree while they search for me and soon give up. My heart would start pounding, I would hold my breath, and as soon as they would leave from view, I would give a triumphant laugh of victory, as if to say “although you may be a higher level, that doesn’t mean you are better than me.†Likewise, I would enjoy the feeling in WoW, (which I plan also to be a rogue) in which I am running down a road and suddenly hit with a fireball and because of skill and reaction, quickly use my hotkey for “Vanish†and sneak away, limbs in tact.
That is one reason why I personally love PvP servers. And as I said before, I would say that the reason there are PvP servers, is to give more of a reason for guilds, groups, and friendships to stay together and take care of each other so that things like “cheap†combat do not occur. I guess you could say that it adds one more numerical tally point for there to be an MMORPG at all, which to me, has always been taken in the literal meaning of “Massively Online Role Playing Game.†People play their roll. If they, themselves are evil, then they will play evil. It happens in life as well, and we can’t just jump to another planet(server) to get away from it. There are going to be people who take advantage of a situation, and that is completely up to them. All I would say is try not to allow yourself to get into too many of those situations too often.
As a final note, these MMORPGs were made to be Team Based. Hence the reason for the split of Alliance and Horde. So the fact that dueling is possible, it should not be any indicator of how good the PvP is, or will be, since I feel that game with such boundaries are given the split of teams so that the entire team can work together rather than just one person going out on his own. So really, why play an MMORPG to solo all the time. Kinda seems to defeat the purpose to me. My advice would be placed in the cliché, “It’s not just about what you know, it’s about who you know.†If there is a lvl 40 ripping single level 20s up often outside of your town, get all the lvl 20s together and take the level 40 down. Use each other, and help each other. That is what MMORPGs and PvP are about. And that is why there are PvP servers.
December 2nd, 2004 at 9:57 am
There’s a couple things not even in dispute here. One is that the whole “survival aspect” of a pvp server is “fun” so many of you. Even that “ganking” low level characters or characters not paying attention while they pick herbs. I have no doubt you guys find all of that really fun. Each person has their own fun and I don’t find those things even a little bit fun. There’s not need for us to argue about that. To each his own.
Another thing not in dispute is whether the whole game is well done or popular. It’s obviously popular and it’s very polished. It has innovations over other mmorgps that make it less annoying to play (even though I think it still has too long of travel times and too many arbitrary skill-less times sinks and hoops to jump through). But yeah, it deserves the high ratings.
The thing that *is* in dispute is whether or not one particular aspect of the game meets the basic cireteria needed to be a competitive game at all: the pvp. We aren’t talking about tradeskills or instanced dungeons or raids or quests or duels or even battlegrounds. We’re talking about one of many aspects of the game: just the non-consentual encounters you have with the enemy faction on the pvp server. Again, if you want to argue that those ecounters, as they stand, are great fun, then I don’t doubt they are (to you) and I wouldn’t advise you to do anything other than you’re doing.
BUT…I am saying that those encounters fail to meet the basic crieteria of a reasonable competitive game. That there is even any debate on this is really puzzling me. Why is it that all the aspects I’m claiming make this game a very poor competitive game are somehow ok, but would obviously never be ok in any other competitive game? THAT’s what I’d like to hear an answer to.
Why shouldn’t I start with some extra pieces in chess after hitting the 200 hour mark? Why not have a massively multiplyer online chess game where you can idle in a chat room and challenge people to chess matches…and if they aren’t at their keyboard, then you can just start making moves until they show up? Being “alert” would be a top skill in this game. Why not allow each chess player to bring in as many friends as he feels like in the middle of the game, extending the board and getting a whole new set of pieces for each friend? If my enemy brings in 3 friends, but I only have 1 friend, then I will probably lose. I could use a lot of skill to win anyway. I could know that the good way to play this game is to always have friends online who can enter my games. (Why should any competitie game be a test of how many friends you have, again?) I could go on and on. All of these are obviously terrible ideas for making a competitive game that measures interesting skills. Note that it is measuring something…something retarded. It’s measuring how much time I spent to get extra pieces. It’s measuring how many friends I have access to online at any given time (and also the skill of those friends as a secondary factor). It’s measuring my “alertness” which sounds like something reasonable to measure until you realize it’s just a weird mechanic that allows one player to start playing the game when the other(s) don’t know they are supposed to be playing. A “skill” yes, but wouldn’t any real competitive game not have this feature?
Being an introvert, I am into the concept of self-reliance. If I am the best chess player in the world, I should win all tournaments. In a group game like counterstrike, I need a group of friends on my team who also skilled. But, at least there’s a limit. If I have, say, 5 friends we can enter 6on6 tournament matches. The other team can’t just bring in the rest of their guild halfway through the match, because that would be an absurd thing to do in a competitive game.
Note that from the interviews about battlegrounds, it sounds like they actually are intended to be a real competitive game. It sounds like some level ranges are enforced. Perhaps close (or even exactly even) number of players on each team. It’s instanced, and maybe it has a definite starting point which means: a) they could prevent you from calling in your 30 friends in your guild after that point and b) a starting point also implies an ending point, a win condition and reasonably short period of time where everyone knows they are actually playing and is not afk or distracted by real-life issues or in-game herbs or whatever.
If battlegrounds are like that, then don’t you guys think THAT would be a fairly good competitive game? You guys seem unwilling to admit that there exist any games in this world that aren’t good competitive games, so I guess by default you have to agree that my description of battlegrounds would make a good competitive game, lol. Anyway, doesn’t the current pvp system sound a kinda silly compared to what I’ve described? And again, doesn’t my description of chess with all the warcraft pvp features sound like a silly game that measures ridiculous skills no one cares about?
–Sirlin
December 3rd, 2004 at 12:18 pm
PVP afficianodos in WoW are like the kids that make fun of the retarded kid at school. He’s an easy mark, and sometimes the jokes at Corky’s expense really are funny (if also cruel), but everyone acknowledges that there’s something wrong with the guy who picks on the retard exclusively.
PVP as it currently exists is fun for griefing, not for strategy or competition. Sometimes this griefing takes advanced forms which require forethought and planning, and while this is “strategy” in the crudest sense, it’s misleading in the context of this discussion because the game was never competitive to begin with (in part because what’s even at stake is so rarely defined, so “winning” is never even clear (the paradigm case might be player v. player, but often it’s player y ambushing player z, or player x and player y against player z, or half their guild gangbanging someone, or someone afk, etc.). Competing in the first place means the specification of win conditions (think about the current situation in Iraq- the US beat the crap out of the Iraqi army, thus fulfilling the traditional “win” conditions, yet the Iraqis continue to fight. One of the clear problems now is that since exterminating all Iraqis is certainly not an option, no one has a clear view of what WOULD count as winning). PVP does not specify “win conditions” in part because MMORPGs are barely games at all. They are more like a game space, the general rules of which govern many (mostly mindless, highly repetitive) mini-games, such as quests, etc. That’s why these mini-games are one of the few satisfactions in the endless treadmill of MMORPGs- they have conditions- a start, objectives, and a reward when you finish. PVP as it currently exists has none of this. What’s worse, even if it did, it would still seem like a pretty degenerate version of many other such games (also made by Blizzard) which already exist.
Do you think the US worries a lot about its “strategy” when it invaded Grenada? Of course there’s lots of forethought and planning, but everyone acknowledges it’s basically just a wash. This is akin to sitting at home and dreaming up elaborate setups for pushing the retard into the girls’ locker room, etc. Are you “strategizing”? Sure, I guess. But the real issue is whether the product of your strategic thinking is something that should be admired and acknowledged by others interested in the game. And in that case, the answer is almost uniformly “no.” The issue is fuzzy and lingers because it is not *always* “no.” Sometimes someone will come up with something genuinely clever. But the toolset for such things is pretty narrow, the outcomes are fairly deterministic, and generally this doesn’t happen. When it does–to analogize to the fighting game world again–the credit due is more akin to the discoverer of a bug, or someone who finds some weird feature they show off in a combo video. That’s the heart of serious fighters- you face an opponent straight up- the same tools available to both of you, and one *outplays* the other. You can stretch and pervert the definition of “outplays” all you want, but the shit going down in MMORPG PVP is never going to be the same kind of thing and we all know it, because there are no win conditions, so if you’re losing, you can just change the terms on which the game is played, and call in the cavalry.
That said, I actually think picking on the dramatically lower level players in PVP is the right way to go. As was, correctly I think, pointed out earlier, same-level PVP is mostly a lose-lose situation, and can be an unpleasant kind of toss-up. Since you can do a lot better just grinding than you’re likely to do in PVP, the justification for it would be the demonstration of a respected/respectable skill set. However, anyone that plays WoW and other (non-MMORPG) games knows that the PVP skillset is pretty limited, repetitive, and mostly braindead. (Guildwars potentially aside, though I have serious reservations there as well- the game is reminiscent of M:tG, and ANY and EVERY M:tG deck will get beat if you play it enough times or against diverse opponents. What I want, especially in games that are nominally based on “heroism” is to have a shot at living the dream- one man rides into town and is just straight up BETTER than everyone else. You could get this in arcades, yet it has ironically disappeared from games that are actually supposed to be about heroes and adventuring).
In competitive fighting games, PVP dominance is intrinsically recognizable by serious players of the game as enviable. Notice this is not so in *shitty* fighting games, where some bootleg tactic or other dominates thoughtlessly, and it becomes a matter or who is the first one to pull it off, or who can develop the most skill in its execution (assuming some is even required, which is not always the case). While there are always a few dullards and fanboys that still think (whichever game) is cool, players generally are excellent at scenting this out and awarding props accordingly.
I only fault Sirlin for even kidding himself into thinking he was going to find competition in a MMORPG (or even be able to squeeze it in there himself), a game who’s historical model is almost diametrically opposed to competition (as Sirlin (correctly) envisions it). To me this seems like heading to the mall and then finding out that, while it may be fun, full of pretty things, and full of hierarchies for both shoppers and employees, it’s not a good competition. You want competition? Head to the tennis courts- we all know the mall is for something else. MMORPGs are the same- they are not, nor have they ever been about competition. They’re about empowerment, and then lording those powers over others. That’s also why they’re so popular, because everyone likes that (*not* because they’re “good games,” which is an entirely separate question). If they were about actual competition, 96% of everyone would KNOW their lowly place in the ranking of men, instead of being able to steal the basest form of superiority by grinding all night amidst the stack of Mt. Dew cans and pizza boxes. Everyone likes bullying or the other fatuous paths to feeling cool provided by MMORPGs, and very few like real competition.
December 6th, 2004 at 9:55 am
Sirlin,
I feel that part of you is struggling to come to grips with what is a ‘competitive’ game regarding your apples and oranges comparison of Starcraft, Chess, and other ‘two player’ games to MMultiplayerORPGs(I will refer to MMORPGs rather that WOW as I have not specifically played WOW). Perhaps you perfer apples, but not oranges. Both are fruit, both can be played competitively, but they are different. You refer to ’skill’ in games like Chess and Starcraft. What is this skill derived from? From playing over and over, from learning from others tactics, maps, layout, resources, strengths and weaknesses of various units/pieces and so forth. These skills are derived from ‘preparation’ mixed with ones own common sense and intelligence. Preparation is the key to MMORPGs as well. Knowing the maps (world in this case), knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your character, learning tactics from other players, building your character up, knowing where the better items load, better item combinations, etc. Perhaps you have forgotten the amount of time you had to put into Chess or SC to become good at it. You seem to have equated natural ’skill’ with games like Chess or SC and forgotten the ‘preparation’ you had to endure to become great, just as you must with MMORPGs.
Regarding so called ‘twitch’ games, that require a fairly high level of manual dexterity to be ’skillful’ like Counterstrike (FPS) and 1vs1 fighting games, they too require many, many hours of practice to be good at. You have to learn all of the moves, learn maps, learn tactics which is really the same in MMORPG minus the manual dexterity (though in MUDs a fast typer could rock). In MMORPG you have to spend many many hours to have a good character, to understand the map layouts, and learn tactics to effectively defeat your opponents. I don’t see the difference in the end competition. The only real difference is that in MMORPGs winning or losing can actually ‘mean’ something to your character, rather than purely a scoreboard/stat. To this, MMORPGs have the ability to far outweigh the competition taken from other games (depending if the MMORPG wants to include benefits for winning fights, as not all do).
Although in a ‘duel’ a 15th level vs a 20th level would generally lose in most MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons) or MMORPG, at least in MUDs there are ways to use tactics and your knowledge of environment to defeat your opponents. If you can bait your attackers into an area with friendly NPCs, or areas that have NPCs that will attack both sides and use these to your advantage you can overcome level differences. By knowing (gained knowledge/intelligence of the user) where everything loads, where the better equipment is a well stocked level 15 can maul a level 20 (at least on MUDs). And no it doesn’t require 24/7 playing to stock up if you KNOW where stuff is. As usual, it requires a lot of time to gain this knowledge, just as it did to master other games. There was also the issue of character skills in MMORPGs which can greatly help to balance a difference in level, by picking the right spells/skills based on gained knowledge. Obviously, if an opposing player is armed with this knowledge as well, he becomes a formidable opponent, just like in Chess. If your opponent in Chess is better than you, what do you do? Complain that he’s too good? No, you prepare better next time, practice, play against other people, gather knowledge, just as you have to do in MMORPGs by building your character up, learning the intricacies of the skills, the best combo for equipment, the ins-and-outs of the world.
Another great aspect of PvP is leadership or generals. MMORPGs are after all a social game, and being a great leader to muster up a group to thwart the raiding enemy is truly an accomplishment when faced against overwhelming odds. During raids it’s not just PvP but group vs group. This grander scale of PvP is more comparable to a game of Counterstrike than Chess. While your part as an individual may not be great, the sum of the parts and knowing you played a role in the grand scheme of things is what should be rewarding. Raiding with a weaker group can be rewarding, fighting against all odds, this is what ‘legends’ are made of. Being the player that others look to for leadership is rewarding. When the Horde (played by real players) comes knocking on your door, are you the one that answers the call? Gathers the forces? Prepares them to properly defend the area? Maybe not, but even at lower levels you can play a role, albeit small, perhaps crucial.
In closing, your opening statement: But it prompted me to ask this question in general chat: “I’ve been killed several times in a row by high level players where I had no chance because of the level difference. What is the point of the PvP server, again?” is telling. First, to be killed several times in a row in the same area is rather foolish, and extremely foolish if playing on a PvP server. Obviously you have not ‘learned’ from your mistake. That mistake is returning to an area that is ‘hostile’. In effect that area went from maybe a level 20 quest area to a level 40-60 warzone. For a comparison to other ‘skill requiring’ games, if you are in Ghost Recon2 and separated from your squad, coming under heavy fire do you call for your friends? Or do you keep quiet, die, respawn and run right back to that place 4 times in a row, dying to impossible odds everytime? From your statement, that is exactly what you do/did. I’m sure you wouldn’t have done that in GR2, so why do you do it in MMORPGs? I’m sure you would have called for backup. My first thought would have been, ‘let’s get some heroes together and go kick those people the hell outta my area’. Yes, I may have had to get 10 level 20s, or whatever and maybe we would have lost, or maybe won, but that’s the challenge of playing on a PvP server. That challenge should be your reward in helping the Alliance or the Horde succeed. If you don’t want a dynamic world where regions can become dangerous from intruders then perhaps you shouldn’t be playing on the PvP server.
I hope now that you understand the nature of the fruit and realize that MMORPGs and other games really aren’t so different in the amount or quality of competition that they contain/offer. I play almost exclusively competitive games, and have played pkilling (PvP) MUDs for almost 12years.
-Mogrash
December 6th, 2004 at 10:59 am
What about Guild Wars? Did you try it?
December 7th, 2004 at 12:13 am
Sirlin,
Your claims that WoW PvP isn’t competative appear to be based on the fact that you don’t seem to want to actually play the mass multiplayer aspect of the game.
No, a level 20 against a level 40 is pretty much a guaranteed win for the level 40. But the game isn’t about only one-on-one conflict. It is about making friends and allies who will work with you, as well as the general pre-built factions present.
There are problems with PvP environments in MMORPGs, but your general complaints are akin to:
You challenge someone to a game of football. He brings friends for his team. You, being a loner, don’t. You lose badly, then complain that he brought friends.
You challenge someone to a game of CvS2. You pick a Ratio 1 character and ignore the other 3 points of characters available. He picks a Ratio 4. You could have “evened” the odds if you didn’t make your character choice be a loner, but instead you say the game isn’t competative because you’ve decided to put your own personal restriction of being a loner into the rules.
You play a team-based FPS. Your team consists of a bunch of loners who won’t work together. The opposing team work together like a well oiled machine. The match isn’t even close, and it was obvious from the start. You complain that the game itself isn’t competative because your side wouldn’t pull together for a single match.
December 7th, 2004 at 11:28 am
You are idiots. MMORPG PvP is not like showing up solo to a football game, then complaining that the opposing side is a team. The (obvious, already articulated) difference being that football has bounded win conditions, and rules about how many people you can bring, how you can tackle legally, etc. This bounded/unbounded point applies to all of the other (CVS2, etc.) examples as well. If you know the rules, then handicap yourself intentionally, you are certainly responsible and perhaps foolish (assuming you were really out to win). When you show up to a PvP fight, there ARE no rules about who brings a team, who doesn’t, terrain conditions, etc. This means that even if you as a level 20 character are somehow able to defeat a level 30 opponent, perhaps by seriously outplaying them (though again, this is barely even possible, if at all), they can just call in the cavalry, etc. So who won?
If you can’t answer that question, you’ve got a problem. In a football game, you can easily determine wins, losses, and ties. This is the case in every decent game, but is not the case in much of MMORPG PvP combat. The “rules” just sort of change along the way. You may think that makes it more “real” (which is retarded) but even if that were true, it also makes it less interesting as a game, and certainly less interesting as a test of personal skill.
This raises another point which is important to any team endeavor- the diffusion of personal claims on a team win. Sometimes you may be critical, other times dispensible, or even a liability. Yet do you deserve credit if your team wins? Do you deserve it even if you adversely affected their chances of winning? Any real competitor is drawn to outlets and personal tests. Weasels, whiners, and the ninny accountants that populate MMORPGs prefer nicely diffuse “teams.” Less responsibility, less owning up to your own shortcomings.
December 8th, 2004 at 1:56 pm
I didn’t see anyone posting this link, so I thought I’d share it: http://www.legendmud.org/raph/gaming/
That’s Raph Koster’s website. He was lead designer for Ultima Online, and is currently one of the more important members of the Star Wars Galaxies crew.
One of the essays on the site, titled a “A Philosophical Statement on Playerkilling,” does a good job of summing up all of the basic arguments surrounding the issue along with the difficulties from a development standpoint of enacting various solutions. There’s a lot of other good stuff about online game/world design, the difficulties of managing an online world, etc. He’s one of the most experienced designers in that field, so you may want to give the site a look.
December 8th, 2004 at 4:56 pm
I’ve met Raph. I’ve been to Raph’s lectures, and heard his views on lots of things. He’s a very educated and intelligent person with a lot of interesting things to say. His website is interesting and well-written, even moving at times. I never hear anything good at all about the game he was lead designer of–Star Wars Galaxies–but I guess that’s neither here nor there.
The essay he wrote on player killing, while interesting, has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion here. Our discussion is about whether mmorpg pvp 1) is a good competitive game or not and b) is it a game at all, since it doesn’t have clear win/loss conditions or “bounded play conditions” (such as even number of players on each side, enterting the game with somewhat even material advantages). Raph is merely recounting some anecdotes about what he thought was feasible and what he thought might be fun at the time.
I would like to respond further when I get more time, but s-kill pretty much said everything that needs to be said. Football has the same basic elements of competitive games like chess, starcraft, street fighter, and counter-strike (cs tournaments, I mean). All those games have a clear beginning, win condition, and rules about how many players are allowed and what material advantages are allowed. My theoretical description of Warcraft battlegrounds also has these properties, but wandering around on a pvp server and fighting arbitrarily many enemies at any time of any level does not. Isn’t my battlegrounds example obviously a much better game than current pvp? Why would current pvp even be classified as a game? Do some people here think a competitive game doesn’t need a win condition or bounded play conditions?
Hey s-kill, what do you think? ;)
–Sirlin
December 10th, 2004 at 3:34 pm
Sirlin, forgive me for saying so, but the answer to this is pretty simple…
As mentioned, every game has its rules. The general rule of this game is: the more time you put into it, the more you get out of it in terms of winning against the competition.
You can’t simply claim that you are “playing to win” if you cannot accept what it takes to “play to win”. I’m sorry, but if you don’t put in the time to level up etc, then you are not “playing to win” for that game in particular. Simple as that.
All games are different. If you don’t like it you can just move on to another game.
December 13th, 2004 at 4:55 pm
I’ll make this very clear: I am ***NOT*** “playing to win” in Warcraft pvp. Not at all. If I were, then I would hunt only with friends in out of the way areas, I would ambush the enemy while they are afk, I would camp lowbie towns and harass them to slow their leveling, and so and so on. I could say all sorts of things about what I’d do if I were playing to win.
Here’s the sticking points: a) you can’t win, b) some games are very poor when treated as serious competitive games. Part b) is obvious; not every game in the world is a good competitive game. Only games that have basic properties of equality and bounded play conditions should even really be considered. The battlegrounds scenerio I mentioned *does* meet those basic requirements to even be a game. Random pvp in World of Warcraft does not, therefore I’m not spending any time or effort attempting to win at it.
–Sirlin
December 13th, 2004 at 6:27 pm
Hmm, so what you’re basically saying is the game sucks at pure and even competition as mentioned, so even if you play it, it’s not for pure competition right? Makes sense.
December 13th, 2004 at 8:03 pm
I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic, but yeah. It is a game with many virtues. Fair competition is not one of them. There’s community, instance dungeons, eventually raids and battlegrounds. Those are things I play it for.
–Sirlin
December 14th, 2004 at 10:15 am
“This means that even if you as a level 20 character are somehow able to defeat a level 30 opponent, perhaps by seriously outplaying them (though again, this is barely even possible, if at all), they can just call in the cavalry, etc. So who won?â€
Response: If you are a level 20 and beat a level 30, you win. If they call in the cavalry and you escape, you win. If you die, you lost. The game IS bounded by rules. The difference is, this MMORPG are dynamic, full of suprises, rules are bent all the time. You figured this out later in your following paragraph.
“If you can’t answer that question, you’ve got a problem. In a football game, you can easily determine wins, losses, and ties. This is the case in every decent game, but is not the case in much of MMORPG PvP combat. The “rules” just sort of change along the way. You may think that makes it more “real” (which is retarded) but even if that were true, it also makes it less interesting as a game, and certainly less interesting as a test of personal skill.â€
Response: I answered the question, you failed to. Whether it makes it a less interesting game or not is a personal preference. I beg to differ on this being less interesting as a test of personal skill. In MMORPGs being able to wade through tons of attackers by knowing your terrain and finishing off a wounded player while all of his friends are trying to kill you, then retreating to safety, ie against overwhelming odds is quite an impressive test of personal skill. (This happens quite often on MUDs I played in the past). As for determining wins and losses, we judged that by ‘Pkiller lists’, you kill players you get pkilling points, you kill players with tons of pkilling points you get a % of their pkilling points, when you die, you lost half. The best pkillers had the most points, because killing people with no pkilling points (newbies) gave only 1 point (next to nothing). It was about killing people and not dying. Much similar to a kill/death ratio found in many tactical shooters. So MMORPG PvP can be competitve, can be challenging, and does require skill. Whether all MMORPG implement this effectively is debateable.
-Mogrash
P.S. I noticed no reply to my earlier post.
December 20th, 2004 at 11:10 pm
I think the idea of competition in MMORPGs (my opinions lack knowledge mind you, as WoW beta is the only MMORPG I’ve played) is that the game starts at character creation. Everyone starts with an even playing field; a level 1 character with their choice of class and race. Everything from that point on must be considered as something done to secure ‘victory’. Things like getting good equipment and leveling must be thought akin to doing the same actions for your heros in WC3. Knowing your terrain and your enemies weaknesses just take practice with the map enemies of that class. Building up your character and allocating points are just parts of the things you do to ensure victory in any other game, just like gaining key strategical areas on maps or building up an army. The main difference in MMORPGs is time. If you want to play competively you’ll need to invest more time for a payout that only affects your one character. Rather than a 1 minute match, or a 30 minute match, you have a 200 hour match. Whether this makes for a good competitive game is debatable, but much of that will bu opinion, and regardless, it requires huge amounts of patience.
The transferable skills for MMORPGs is the ability to get a team together, avoid high level characters, and just general concepts of long-term character development, and you must use those skills efficiently until you can take on your opponent (it could be thought of as not rushing with a small force against someone who you know to be going heavily defensive). All players can take those skills into the game at the beginning of the ‘match’, and can develop them with practice.
So in WC3, or any RTS or FPS, the match starts when you decide to start the fight, but in WoW the match starts at character creation. Rather than viewing the moment someone sneaks up on you to gank you (or even the moment you enter into dangerous territory) as the beginning of any one match, you must view the birth of your character as the beginning of the match, and his retirement the end. I guess the main weakness of my theory is that as you said, there is no set conditions to see who’s winning, but changing PvP a bit could remedy that.
And if you like playing alone, then that’s too bad. You have the ability to form a group, other people have the ability to form a group, and if you don’t take advantage of that then you’re just choosing to play at a disadvantage, and are in for a challenge. If you’re willing to play with that challenge, then good for you. You paid for the game and are free to play it how you wish, just don’t complain if what you consider to be the funnest way to play makes it difficult for you (not saying you were complaining; that was more of just a general statement for people).
(sorry if I repeated things, or said things in a jumping-around fashion, but paragraph construction on computers isn’t a strength of mine)
— Ping
December 21st, 2004 at 11:10 am
To the guy who said you wont find good competition on PvE server. Come to Dalaran PvE server, and test your theory on me. As for the PvP concept, I was thinking of switching to a PvP server until I read Sirlins article here. As for the competition, I think what blizzard needs to do is kill the PvP server concept and make a hardcore server that works under PvE rules. Now thats my kind of fun. As i am used to hardcore from diablo. I think playing for keeps makes a much higher level of fun and helps population control. Eventually these servers will be flooded with high levels.
January 1st, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Sirlin… I forget what I was trying to state… but I know I was NOT being sarcastic. Sarcasm gets nowhere in discussions.
Since I started playing, I’ve been on a PvE server (RP) and find this the best way to play the game thus far. And I agree… if you’re playing alone without building friends/community around you, you’re missing out. The best experience I’ve had with this game is the friends I’ve made through simply being sincere and acting as though I was REALLY in the world… as if the world itself was real. Sincere RP at its best is great, as long as you stick within the bounds of your character (ex. a warlock shouldn’t hate ‘evil’ stuff).
Then again, this IS my first MMORPG, so this game maybe sucks overall as one and I just don’t know it.
January 1st, 2005 at 8:21 pm
I found your article and subsequent comments to be severely flawed.
PVP is not about playing fair. No arena duels, etc. Lone warrior, low health fighting a mob, getting nuked by pk = realistic.
I am playing on arguably the most competitive server (archimonde) and I stick to contested zones only. They are much more fun.
I can fight alliance that are the same level as me, but I am so much of a better gamer, that I prefer stacking the odds against myself in order to level the playing field for all players involved. Fighting someone that has outleveled me I see as the ultimate challenge, and the funny thing is, many skilled pvpers/groups win fights against drastically higher foes.
The idea that there is no skill merely levels in PVP is not just flawed, it is a lie created by the skill-challenged. Like early UO (pre UOR) an excellent sense of timing, tactics, and character understandings are some of the most important traits of skilled MMORPG PVPers. Saying that a CS player will be good in another FPS is valid, but the same is also true with MMORPGs.
I’ll actually make the arguement that MMORPG PVP is more skill dependent, and I will discuss why.
In an FPS, there are a limited number of options each gamer is present with upon seeing an enemy, in summary:
run away
fire gun 1
fire gun 2
fire gun 3
throw weapon 1
throw weapon 2
throw weapon 3
seek cover
etc.
Altogether this list is quite limited because the offensive capabilities each character has is small.
Now, in a well designed MMORPG, contrast that with a spell casting class (most often preferred by pvpers).
Initial options at seeing the enemy might include the non-weapon choices of the FPS player, but also include a vast number of spells.
I have in excess of 20 spells pertinent to PVP, plus pots, plus variables like my health, my status, my buff timers, etc to deal with. Unlike in an FPS, an MMORPG is far more dynamic and chaotic. While an FPS gamer has to worry about things like reloads, I have to deal with things affecting my playstyle far more - polymorph, fear, stuns, spell interuptions, etc. I must include those considerations in all my combat, and skill respond.
I think I have already displayed that the MMORPG PVPer has far more options in fighting, than does an equivalent FPS gamer. Oh, and btw, most skilled FPS gamers, also make great PVPers.
Cheers!
age
UO-Pacific
UO-SP
EQ-SZ
DAOC-Andred
SB-beta
SB-scorn
SB-corruption
PS-emerald
PS-Markov West
WOW-Archimonde (horde)
January 3rd, 2005 at 6:10 pm
This post has been removed by the author.
January 3rd, 2005 at 6:12 pm
Before i say anything, i just want to make it clear that i have no hostility towards anyone and that i think Blizzard makes excellent games. I agree with Sirlin in that they aren’t very good competitive games, but i don’t think that PVP was ever the main goal of their RPG games. So i think it’s ok if that aspect is thoroughly flawed. However, it does suck that Blizzard has millions of fans who have never gotten good at any vastly superior competitive games (fighting games, RTS games, chess, etc) who still support their every decision. But again, i understand that players can’t really be blamed for uninformed opinions because it takes an obscene amount of time (years) to get good at any truly deep competitive game. Most people just don’t know what they’re talking about, because really, how many of us have placed top 3 in a big tournament before. I really really don’t want to sound like i have any contempt for anyone, but i would like to share my opinions too. Anyway they’re just games.
First, to the guy who said that more options = better competition, the Mortal Kombat series contains some of the most notably horrible competitive fighting games created. They have lots of cool character designs and fatalities, hence lots of fans willing to argue for them. But the fact of the matter is that no MK game except possibly MK2 and MK3 have made it past the one-month mark in tournament play. Something always breaks and the game becomes unplayable. Now these games have four buttons each, multiplied by three different states (jumping, standing, crouching), along with half a dozen special moves, lots of movement options, and lots of stuff to keep track of (lifebar, stage position, weapons, stances, and so on). So we’ve got something in the order of 50 things you can do in any given moment plus half a dozen things to manage, and the game is horrible. By your analysis, Mortal Kombat 1 is three times as good as WoW and Mortal Kombat 6 (with stance changes tripling the basic options count) is nine times the competitive game that WoW could ever hope to be. MK1 and MK6 are horrible competitive games, so obviously that’s not the case so obviously your litmus test means nothing.
Also, you mentioned that you often find it challenging to take on higher-level opponents, to level the playing field since you consider yourself a superior player. As a competitive fighting game player, i’m simply shocked by that comment. The whole idea that you can find it challenging to duel with far less developed opponents should seriously make you reconsider whether you’re playing a truly competitive game. Someone else said that leveling up a character is the rough equivalent of putting time into learning chess. But obviously that’s not the case, if a weak player can end up with a high-level character.
One of the defining characeristics of a true competitive fighting game is that you have work hard to improve at it. It doesn’t happen automatically. I known people who have played Street Fighter for 15 years who couldn’t land a hit on Sirlin if he didn’t want them to, and Sirlin definately doesn’t belong to the first generation of SF tournament players. The whole point is that you can’t get better at good competitive games on autopilot. However, with MMORPGs (and really any game with a leveling system), all it takes to get to level 60 is time and trial and error. In fact, the worst part of it is that all you have to find is one thing that you can do well and do it over and over and over and over again. What would happen to a chess player with the world’s most thorough knowledge of moving the knight piece but with no advanced knowledge of any other pieces? He would get creamed.
Finally, someone said that PC games have patches and fighting games do not. That’s simply not true. There have been about 20 or so games based on the core Street Fighter engine/characters. Of those, only about 5 have stood the test of time: SF2 Hyper Fighting, Super SF2 Turbo, SFIII: 3rd Strike, Marvel vs Capcom 2, and Capcom vs SNK 2. If you notice, each of those games is either the second or third game in a series. For example, Capcom vs SNK 2 is the follow-up to Capcom vs SNK and Capcom vs SNK Pro, both of which had character imbalance and a few gameplay flaws. By the time Capcom got to making CvS2, all of those flaws had been addressed and the result was a deep, fleshed out, thoroughly playable game. There’s definately a process of player feedback in place. As a counterexample, the reason MK6 is a horrible competitive game is that the core fighting game is a copy-and-paste job of MK5, flaws and everything. Instead of patching the gameplay problems, they simply added three or four innovative new play modes that all the magazines raved about, looking over the fact that most of the glitches found within a month of MK5’s release were still not addressed in MK6. But then, magazines have always failed miserably at rating competitive games. The minimal time frame they’re given to do reviews and get them to the printers simply doesn’t afford them the time to rate anything other than presentation, interface, and totally subjective made-up categories such as “Fun Factor.”
Look, here’s a basic argument. Take any game you consider competitively solid. Then try to imagine enhancements that improve STRICTLY competitive play. If that mental exercise results in an avalanche of ideas, then i’m sorry, but your game is competitively flawed. That’s what Sirlin tried to do (over and over) by using the Battlegrounds example, and all of you agreed that there are many many improvements that would help make WoW a better PVP experience. Of the 20+ Street Fighter spinoffs out there, only 5-7 are actually really good competitive games. If you do the math, you’ll see that the rest of them are BAD competitive games. And we’re talking about Capcom, one of the absolute most respected developers of competitive games of the last two decades. Is it really that unfathomable to say that the first release version of WoW is not a good competitive game? I mean, the game’s main goal is NOT PVP, it has many PVP improvements in the works, and its main revenue comes not from encouraging competitive play, but from making it time-consuming (monthly charges) to get to the “good part” of the game - the part where you actually get to do cool high-level stuff.
One last thing i want to make clear about Capcom’s quality competitive games: They got lucky. Now don’t get me wrong, there’s absolutely no way to end up with a good game if you use bad design. However, if you have the world’s best designers working on the project, it still takes luck for the game to last in the harsh environment known as tournament play. Capcom can test games for two years using a staff of 50 people (which they don’t do). Then they release the game and 20,000 people play it for a month and their whole accumulated testing period is like nothing compared to that. So in order for a game to hold up, there’s a bit of luck needed in the mix. A lot of people keep mentioning how Blizzard spent a year in testing with thousands of people. Well, compare that to the hundreds of thousands of people who bought the game the first week, and you should see that their testing period is just not enough to compete with that. Especially since most of the people testing their game were not interested in PVP because the main goal of WoW is not PVP, it’s role playing and exploring.
Finally, just a short concise list of flaws with MMORPG PVP:
1) lag plays a huge role, meaning that most battle decisions are made before combat based on guesses
2) it’s impossible to know exactly what kind of opponent you’re facing, meaning that you have to guess more than think (fire mage or ice mage? can’t tell until it’s too late)
3) since you have to spend time leveling your character, most players have a very shallow understanding of opposing character classes and very few have experience using opposing classes
4) there are no universally agreed-upon rules for matches, no accepted win conditions, no guaranteed rematch rules, and way way too much arbitrary rulemaking on the player’s part
5) other than luck, there is no way to find equally skilled opponents since no win/loss records are kept anywhere (without any restrictions on relative opponent character levels in duels, they would be useless anyway since 100/5 win record could mean you killed 100 lvl1 characters and lost 5 times while afk)
6) most battles are decided beforehand due to character imbalance (paladins and shamans are too good, etc)
7) if you lose because of character imbalance, you can’t just correct it by picking an appropriate character as with Street Fighter (you have to spend a month building that character)
There’s more, but if you don’t get the point by now, it’s cool if you just wanna play your game. I’ll try not to bother you. It is pretty cool how they dance and stuff.
- Maj
http://sonichurricane.com
January 4th, 2005 at 4:53 am
A rebuttal to a few points made by the previous poster.
“First, to the guy who said that more options = better competition…. Now these games have four buttons each, multiplied by three different states (jumping, standing, crouching), along with half a dozen special moves, lots of movement options, and lots of stuff to keep track of (lifebar, stage position, weapons, stances, and so on). So we’ve got something in the order of 50 things you can do in any given moment plus half a dozen things to manage, and the game is horrible. By your analysis, Mortal Kombat 1 is three times as good as WoW and Mortal Kombat 6 (with stance changes tripling the basic options count) is nine times the competitive game that WoW could ever hope to be. MK1 and MK6 are horrible competitive games, so obviously that’s not the case so obviously your litmus test means nothing.”
Actually WOW is 3d not 2d, and your options you listed are mainly bogus. If I count them in WOW in the same manner that you counted them in MK, WOW would have far more options, exponentially more.. Console games have a very small group of variables to deal with, which is a huge contrast to MMORPGs.
“Also, you mentioned that you often find it challenging to take on higher-level opponents, to level the playing field since you consider yourself a superior player. As a competitive fighting game player, i’m simply shocked by that comment. The whole idea that you can find it challenging to duel with far less developed opponents should seriously make you reconsider whether you’re playing a truly competitive game.”
You misread my post. I said I prefer to play people with better characters, not inferior characters. Superior characters with equal skills to my own will amplify my own mistakes, pointing things out to me much faster. Superior characters with lesser skill are still a challenge, they have the character, I argue I have more skills, if I win the engagement, I prove myself correct, even against the odds.
“However, with MMORPGs (and really any game with a leveling system), all it takes to get to level 60 is time and trial and error. In fact, the worst part of it is that all you have to find is one thing that you can do well and do it over and over and over and over again. What would happen to a chess player with the world’s most thorough knowledge of moving the knight piece but with no advanced knowledge of any other pieces? He would get creamed.”
Most PVPERs in MMORPG consider PVP really to start when all character development is finished. In WOW that takes a bit, but nothing along the lines of EQ.
“1) lag plays a huge role, meaning that most battle decisions are made before combat based on guesses”
This is incorrect, most people have broadband, connect ion speeds are fairly similar for most players, and server side “lag” levels out the playing field anyways for all but connection impaired players.
“2) it’s impossible to know exactly what kind of opponent you’re facing, meaning that you have to guess more than think (fire mage or ice mage? can’t tell until it’s too late)”
This is incorrect. I can watch the spell graphics for the opposing player, and know what spell line he is casting with a fair degree of accuracy (a skill). If he repeats this, I can infer his line, and CS him when I think it will harm him the most. One spell does not decide the fight. One fight does not determine the war.
“3) since you have to spend time leveling your character, most players have a very shallow understanding of opposing character classes and very few have experience using opposing classes”
If you decide to PVE all day, yes. If you PVP, you will regularly be fighting against other classes and know how to fight them.
“4) there are no universally agreed-upon rules for matches, no accepted win conditions, no guaranteed rematch rules, and way way too much arbitrary rulemaking on the player’s part”
MMORPG PVP is not only about dueling. Everyone on their own determines who “wins”. Tournaments are a norm, with clear rules and win conditions, rematch rules, etc.
“5) other than luck, there is no way to find equally skilled opponents since no win/loss records are kept anywhere (without any restrictions on relative opponent character levels in duels, they would be useless anyway since 100/5 win record could mean you killed 100 lvl1 characters and lost 5 times while afk)”
You have obviously not looked at games where the games themselves tracked K:D ratios, levels of enemies, points from PVP, etc. Kill tracking is trivial for developers.
“6) most battles are decided beforehand due to character imbalance (paladins and shamans are too good, etc)”
I am not using a character extremely well suited nor specced to fighting paladins or shamans, and I can still kill them.
“7) if you lose because of character imbalance, you can’t just correct it by picking an appropriate character as with Street Fighter (you have to spend a month building that character)”
Massive character imbalances are fixed by game developers (nerfing) which happens often to correct things. Developing characters in an MMORPG becomes extremely trivial in an older environment because of power leveling.
I think you made a serious of generalizations, and innaccurate statements about MMORPG PVP. I think your misstatements reflect a general lack of experience with the genre, or ignorance about the state of MMORPG gaming in general.
It is true, we haven’t found the equal yet of pre UOR UO PVP (the grail of MMORPG PVP) but WOW shows promise.
regards,
age
January 4th, 2005 at 8:50 am
Mogrash: “Response: If you are a level 20 and beat a level 30, you win. If they call in the cavalry and you escape, you win. If you die, you lost. The game IS bounded by rules. The difference is, this MMORPG are dynamic, full of suprises, rules are bent all the time. You figured this out later in your following paragraph.”
So the game is “bounded by rules,” except that one of the rules is that “you get to change the rules”! If you were not transparently dim, you might realize that having an allowance for rule changing means precisely that the rule set (the thing that determines the win condtions, which you need to have a good competitive game) is not bounded at all. But since you’re too dumb to see this, let’s play along with some examples: Omg dude- a rule-changing rule! That is soooooo meta and deep! Oh wait, no it’s not- it’s garbagey and boring. Let’s stick this “change the rules” rule on to some other popular games: “Here’s Edinger kicking from the 34 yard line… the kick is up… and it’s gooooooooo… oh wait, the kick was shot down by a Packers fan in the stands! The refs are letting it stand, as in accordance with the ‘rules may be changed at a later time’ rule!” (high-fives all around for the Packers fans- everyone else boos) “But now a Chicago fan has crawled onto the scoreboard, and has spraypainted “1 zillion” into the Bears scorebox. The refs are huddling… and the 1 zillion points stands, according to that same rule! Bears win!” And since you’re obviously a lover of clever new rules, how about we change the rules according to which we’re having this very argument! Now the guy that fails to make good arguments and cries is the winner: “… and Mogrash pulls into the lead! Omg- a very poorly-thought out rule change by s-kill there…” Having fun? Neither is anyone else, and the nascent sense of frustration you’d feel being forced to play any of the above-described crappy games is the same thing you feel when you’re “robbed” of your victory by outside intervention, luck, etc., in a MMORPG PVP fight. I suspect this feeling, which I know you’ve all had repeatedly, is the closest thing your tiny brain will allow you as far as recognizing how right I am.
What if I call in my own cavalry to beat the crap out of the cavalry the guy I ambushed called? Do I then half-win, because even if I limped into the fight and am near death, my “team” still wins? What if most of my cavalry dies after I call them in, but I personally manage to sneak away? Is that a win? There are a thousand possible border conditions here that you’re simply ignoring, despite the fact that anyone can tell they’re there. I won’t say you can’t have fun playing patty-cake like this, because a lot of it really is good dirty fun. What it *isn’t* is a good competitve game. Why can’t that be admitted? I don’t have to pretend that “Candyland” is a good competitive game to enjoy sneaking through the shortcut on gumdrop mountain. Candyland is both competitive and fun, but it is not a good competitive game. There are forms of fun that aren’t good competitions, and I suspect WoW is full of them. It’s okay!
Why is there this blind insistence that the things you find fun must also be competitively respectable? I think Sirlin leaned in that direction as well, but I respect him for being able to accept that a game he clearly likes and plays a lot totally sucks as a competitive vehicle (something he and many of the rest of you wish it were, and something it clearly pretends to be). As has been stated, WoW has a lot going for it as a MMORPG (which I actually regard as a totally degenerate class of games, but since most game players are borderline OCD with autistic tendencies, MMORPGs certainly make sense as pastimes).
“One spell does not decide the fight. One fight does not determine the war.” Another inadvertantly telling remark from Age. In fact, no fights determine the war, because you all keep springing right back to life. You can fight as long as you might like, and since there are no “win” conditions, things can just roil on endlessly, with you free to describe any chain of events (long or short) as a victory (or loss). Any of this means a lot less than a decisive victory would, but of course no decisive victory is really possible given the absence of rules.
There are clear analogues to situations like Iraq right now. One popular mentality is the “we got into this thing- we gotta stay until it’s finished.” The only problem is that this is an essentially vacuous goal (vacuous goals always being popular with the electorate, which maybe is its own kind of lesson for MMORPGs). What does it mean to “stay until we’re finished”? Does it just mean they aren’t blowing 10-20 of us (or the new Iraqi police force) up every day? Does it mean they start shopping at the GAP and become Christians? Somewhere in between? This may sound facetious but it’s a real problem. A nice feature of WWII was the surrenders, where duly recognized leaders came to official-looking ceremonies and signed documents with fancy pens, and then everyone else stopped shooting. That’s not a possibility in a place like Iraq, and it’s not what happens in MMORPGs either. Things just grind on and on. Have the Iraqis “won”? In some sense, clearly not. There is still a huge American military presence which strikes at will throughout the country. Yet at the same time everyone agrees that the insurgents control the majority of the territory in Iraq, and show no signs of leaving, slowing down, or surrendering. Where the Iraqi army was defeated almost immediately, the insurgency has resisted the strongest military in the history of the world. That should count for something, right? Or maybe it’s more of an individual thing? Do particular Iraqi insurgents win if they blow up a Humvee and get away? Do they still win if half of them are blown up a day later by shelling? The win conditions in Iraq are not well-bounded. That matters.
“Actually WOW is 3d not 2d, and your options you listed are mainly bogus. If I count them in WOW in the same manner that you counted them in MK, WOW would have far more options, exponentially more.. Console games have a very small group of variables to deal with, which is a huge contrast to MMORPGs.”
So you’re not just putting your “Hi- I’m a moron!” cards on the table, you’re going to insist on them huh? Sign #1 that you’re a moron: Counting variables is the time-honored idiot’s test of a game- the last refuge of a scoundrel. Imagine for a moment a game that I could create in about an hour, where there was full 3d motion and one *million* spells you could cast. Wow! Now *that* would be the most complexicatory stupendifyingly deep game ever! I mean you can just count the options up to tell! Good games have no direct relationship to the number of options, at least beyond some very low limit (I suspect the minimum number of options for a good game to be three, but this is beside your moronic point). Sign #2: pointedly uncharitable reading of the clear point that’s being made. There are 3d fighting games as well. There’s even a “3d” MK. So what? There are good, complex, interesting 3d games, and horrible, dull ones. Again, this point is a complete red herring, which you point to only because you have nothing real to contribute.
“Most PVPERs in MMORPG consider PVP really to start when all character development is finished. In WOW that takes a bit, but nothing along the lines of EQ.”
translation: “Sure, it’s retarded, but *slightly less* retarded than some other games in the same totally uncompetitive class!” Even the MMORPG players in this thread don’t agree when “real” PVP starts. Some say “it’s at character creation!” Others say “it’s when leveling is finished!” Regardless of which one of these views is correct (or even if they’re both wrong), either one of these answers SUCKS. Maj pointed out why re: the “it starts at character creation”: If I get counter-charactered I really have no recourse, save sinking another 200+ hours into a new character (so you can hunt your killer down for “revenge” a few weeks later, as long as they haven’t leveled up way past you since then, and they don’t call in the cavalry, etc.).
If it only really starts at the end of leveling, why not just have those be the characters available at the outset, instead of intentionally nerfing you for weeks and weeks? That’s like saying it takes 200 hours (a conservative estimate to finish leveling) to stick your quarter in the Street Fighter machine. I don’t care *how* fucking good the game is- that’s simply a bad competitive design. It’s *not* a bad design from a non-competitive perspective, however. If, to stretch our minds reeeeeeeeally wide, we were to think “what would they do if they were sort of, just a little bit, trying to milk us for money and keep us trotting dutifully along with more and more tasty carrots dangling in front of our jackass noses?” then the actual MMORPG designs begin to make a little more sense.
There has been as yet zero defense of the competitive value of making people level up just to get the full compliment of their chosen character’s abilities. That’s probably because this idea is transparently a bad one, from a competitive perspective. From which perspective is it a GREAT idea? Oh right, from the one where the designers pay only lip-service to competition and are instead intent on stringing players along. They seem so intent on this that it’s almost as if they think they’d make more money that way!
There are lots of ways to have fun playing MMORPGs, but fans of the game make the mistake of arguing from the facts that a) some people seem to win, others seem to lose, and b) they enjoy these games to the conclusion that the games must have competitive virtues. They don’t, but that’s okay. Just breathe in slowly, and accept that your game is just good mindless fun.
xo,
s-kill
January 4th, 2005 at 11:09 am
“You misread my post. I said I prefer to play people with better characters, not inferior characters.”
No, you totally misread mine. Let me start over. Let’s say you’ve got a lvl20 character out looking for lvl30 characters to duel. Let’s say you find an equally skilled player with such a character. Unless you get lucky, you automatically lose (at least 8 to 2). So assuming you’re a competetive player, i’m going to assume that’s not your goal. What you’re looking for is (at least) an equal chance to win against these higher level characters you seek out. Thus, you’re actually looking for lesser skilled players to have a challenging match. Doesn’t that strike you as kind of odd? You’re actively avoiding equally skilled players in search of inferior players. I mean, even Street Fighter games have handicap levels where you can start off with less vitality/lifebar than the opponent. But the only time anyone uses that option is when they’re playing against their little cousin and absolutely nobody considers that any kind of a challenge or competitive match or interesting.
Just to make it clear, i’m 100% not blaming you here because i think you’re taking one of the only options the game offers you for even a half-decent PVP experience. I’m just saying that the game sucks from a competitive standpoint for forcing you to do that.
“This is incorrect, most people have broadband, connect ion speeds are fairly similar for most players, and server side “lag” levels out the playing field anyways for all but connection impaired players.”
Broadband connections are mandatory for Xbox Live, yet all of those fighting games have lag. It’s something like a quarter of a second and both players experience it equally, but it removes a good half of the theoretical options at your disposal. You can’t ensure that those attacks will connect and/or you can’t capitalize if they do. I’m not saying lag gives one player an unfair advantage over the other (even though that’s sometimes the case based on character types), but i am saying that lag affects gameplay, always adversely. Can you imagine a real basketball game with lag? It would functionally remove from the playing field all actions that take under a second to perform (steals, pass interception, jump fakes, crossovers, etc).
Lag forces you to guess. Competitive games, by definition, are not determined by guessing because winning by sheer luck means nothing to anyone.
“I am not using a character extremely well suited nor specced to fighting paladins or shamans, and I can still kill them.”
If that’s the case, then at the end of the day, all you’ve done is beat inferior players using self-made handicaps. Not only does that method fail at objectively determining true winners, but it completely fucks over any K:D ratio that you would want to use as a guage for choosing opponents.
“Massive character imbalances are fixed by game developers (nerfing) which happens often to correct things.”
Awesome. So instead of spending a month building another character, we can wait six months for a patch so that another class can become overpowered. While we’re at it, why don’t we pick an underpowered class and get him to lvl55 and wait for the patch? Once all the overpowered characters are nerfed, maybe you will get lucky and your character will be the new dominator. Then you can go around “winning” for at least a month before everyone else catches up.
The absurdities never end.
- Maj
http://sonichurricane.com