PDA

View Full Version : VKhaun's Compendium of 'BEST' features.



VKhaun
05-12-2012, 07:39 AM
KGB and I had a good nerd talk earlier and decided to make a list of the things MMO's do that are truly optimal. Not whatever one person or another likes or prefers like skill decks vs class skills unlocked in order vs perk systems, but rather things that are actually done the absolute best way or token features that should 100% always be in every MMORPG to which they would apply. Expect many edits even after the thread dies.




Achievements
WarHammer Online's tome that kept track of everything with links that took you to other tabs.
Must never 'lock out' a completionist by out leveling, failing, forcing a choice between one or another, etc.

Bosses
Story and game progression, and farming runs, should not clash in public areas or match maker instances.
True bosses should always have an element of danger through instakill moves.
Bosses should not just be HP sponges. If the team can go five or six minutes, it shouldn't be made to go forty five.






Commands
/note In-game note pad shared between characters to remember stuff.
/loc Simple command to display coordinates on the map in XYZ.
/XP Off Toggle earning XP

Controls
Never force a player to spam one key, make it auto fire or let them hold it down.
Do not use interruptable progress bar waits for interact points in non-combat situations. Arbitrary wait times are bad.
Control speed must match action speed. No instantaneous vehicle/mount entering and exiting in games with long kill times for example.

Cosmetics
RIFT's two gear window system. One for stats, a second one for gear to actually display on the character (armor of same category).
Dye in some unrestricted form. Not 'weapon dye' or 'metal armor dye'. Just dye that works on anything that can be dyed.
Multiple shape/dye map options for weapons when crafted, created, or commissioned.
Seeing your character's face is OPTIONAL. Full face masks/helms. Visor position settings. Face options that are obscured/wrapped/dark.
No forcing the face to display for cut scenes, avatar windows, etc.

Crafting
Cosmetic appearance and stats as separate and interchangeable as balance will allow.
Resource sink is okay if you NEED one, but should not be a time sink unless it's entertaining.
Customer may submit orders through the game with all applicable choices made clear and materials added up.

Guilds
Must have noticeable unique marks. Banners, emblems, flags, capes.
Ranks with customized permissions.
Vaults with customized permissions by rank.
Able to join multiple guilds and choose which you represent at any given time.

Loot
No need to click or pick up common rewards like currencies.
Items drop as bags rather than the body itself be a container.
Just dropping crafting ingredients or coin rather than trash loot which must be converted.
All actions done in the field without item aid, identification, salvage, convert to gold, etc.
Inventory is not limited and does not affect weight.

Misc.
Torch/Light to view dark environments.

Movement
Slide down ladders button for fast descent.
Jumping is not an emote or formality, it actually moves your character and their hit boxes/range etc, and can traverse gaps.

Pets
Pets should be available to all, though not mandatory. - Needs refining. Permadeath/consumables? PvE only?
No friendly collision detection on pets.
Pets do not pull aggro, or their AI is smart enough to exactly follow and includes a wait command.

Progression
Vertical Progression must use only one increment. No switching from levels to gear tiers.
Horizontal progression becomes Vertical if you don't restrict when options can be changed or how many you may bring.

PvE
Enemies must be more than math checks. Blocking, dodging, planning, adapting. SOMETHING.

PvP
Team mechanics as the focus for balance rather than one on one.
Number of factions or teams should be > 2.
Ability to affect the playing field is mandatory. A static map is not sufficient.
All stuns and staggers must correspond to ONE modifier which reduces them, outside of character stats. (Poise from Dark Souls)

Questing
If not entertaining, they must serve a purpose like showing you a place or mechanic.
Items that require defeating a specific enemy drop from that enemy, no 'guarding' interact points for people to steal while you're in combat.
All players receive credit for all quest items (Find 10 lizard skins).

Respecs
Free, easy, unlimited respecs in the very earliest levels. First zone's full level range at very least.
Respecs must be available proportional to how well the game explains itself. Wiki/forums info is not an excuse.

Social
Leveling Pacts (linked XP between two characters)
Waypoint/Visual queue to members, easily toggled.
If data on a group member is not available, display why/their location.
Account wide and character specific friends lists
Do not implement chat restrictions you do not enforce, like only one global channel 'meant' for trade or something.

Sound
Using sound effects is okay, but music must never be a queue for anything crucial.

Status Effects
Similar to Dark Souls. Repeated attacks with a status associated with them fill a progress bar. Only when the bar is full does the status apply. Resistances to the status make the bar larger, empty faster, fill less per hit, etc. Resistances to the damage type kicks in when the status is applied.

UI
Pressing escape (or one specific controller button) should be the button to close the active window, for EVERY window in your UI.
Be consistent with UI queues. Interaction points should all shine/glow/pointer change the same way.
If your game says you can play X roles, you must have X FULL gear windows/presets to swap between.
UI should never suddenly become a challenge, like having to go find some item immediately and within seconds without warning.
Able to set loot of different types to default to different areas of the inventory on pick-up.
Areas within the inventory should have an on/off toggle for their items showing up as available to sell.


World
Raw respawn rates are not to be abused to up difficulty. Enemies must approach from a distance or spawn at a reasonable rate.
What can be reached or not reached should be intuitive with no invisible walls.
No breath meters unless it serves as part of a niche game like survival/realism.
Visibility should be excellent unless it serves a purpose. Puzzle, tactics, etc.

Sillywilly
05-12-2012, 08:08 AM
KGB and I had a good nerd talk earlier

I stopped right there. Never trust a Russian.

VKhaun
05-12-2012, 08:30 AM
lol... he does love to screw people over in games.
I always have to stop him from trying to kill the gang on KF haha.

VKhaun
05-12-2012, 08:36 AM
Okay that's all I got right now. I'm on three hours of sleep in two days. Going to hang up my shirts that just finished in the dryer and go to bed. I want some good input when I get to work tomorrow!

Ozoron
05-12-2012, 11:55 AM
I think your focusing on the wrong parts of PvP. The most important thing is a huge open world area dedicated to PvP with an incentive to be there so that there is always action (daoc relics or access to darkness falls). Then once that is established 3 factions allows population issues to be much more manageable because people will be attracted to the action.

Alex Mars
05-12-2012, 01:54 PM
I think a game still needs battlegrounds, something small (6-10 per side) with a clear objective that can be played in under 45 minutes normally.

Ozoron
05-12-2012, 02:15 PM
I think a game still needs battlegrounds, something small (6-10 per side) with a clear objective that can be played in under 45 minutes normally.

Oh I agree completely but i would go in the same direction guild wars 2 is going where battlegrounds are purely competitive and have no rewards other than bragging rights ( PvP custom armor that looks different doesn't give more stats)

Alex Mars
05-12-2012, 03:27 PM
Oh I agree completely but i would go in the same direction guild wars 2 is going where battlegrounds are purely competitive and have no rewards other than bragging rights ( PvP custom armor that looks different doesn't give more stats)

Participants should get xp and money, I would think, but I agree that special rewards are not necessary except for cosmetic fluff.

Mute
05-12-2012, 03:32 PM
I don't know, I always liked when your realm's kicking ass in pvp games, you get small pve bonuses.

Ero Elohim
05-12-2012, 08:37 PM
Achievements
WarHammer Online's epic tome that kept track of everything with tabs and marks, lore and progress.
Must never 'lock you out' by out leveling, failing, forcing a choice between one or another, etc.

Actually, I disliked the way the Tome of Knowledge worked. I think it tracked far too much and, in doing so, became completely ignorable. It was an over-abundance of stimulus and I stopped paying attention to the pop-ups after awhile. Achievements need to be something special - an actual achievement - not just candy thrown at you incessantly.
I don't think it tracked more than any other game, it just did it all in one place. Instead of X/100 zombies here, a title menu there, lore there, quest journal over there, you had one book that linked all the tertiary and peripheral information together.


Commands
/note In-game note pad shared between characters to remember stuff.
/loc Simple command to display coordinates on the map in XYZ.
/XP Off Toggle earning XP


I think slash commands should be avoided at all costs. They're esoteric and non-user friendly. If you have a command that's important enough to be included, it should have a button, checkbox, or standard UI element designed for it. Simple slash commands reek of lazy design and a focus on the developer instead of the player.
-Fair, but would you settle for macros? Rather than clutter the UI or spend dev time/$ on 1,000 buttons, could a good macro system that created buttons with custom labels to execute commands satisfy you?
In addition, I actually dislike XP-Off options. They encourage strange breakpoints in the game, instead of moving the community towards a single endgame that the live team can balance around. It was necessary in DAOC specifically because of the battlegrounds implementation, but shouldn't be relied upon.
-Game design 101, as long as it serves a purpose?



Controls
Never force a player to spam one key, make it auto fire or let them hold it down.
Do not make players wait for an animation to interact (turning a valve for 5-10sec).
Do not make players wait for progress bars unless it serves a purpose.

"Unless it serves a purpose." is Game Design 101. Everything in the game is there for a purpose. I also think there's a contradiction here between points #2 and #3. You first state that you don't make a player wait ever, then state it's okay to have them wait if there's a reason. The latter option is the right answer, so I'm not sure why there's an absolute before it.
-Right but games get lazy here and just repeat one mechanic. Just because SOME interactions are intended to be interrupted by combat doesn't mean your instance puzzle with no combat needs to make you wait 5sec per valve to turn eight valves you're going to hit over and over fooling with a puzzle.



Cosmetics
RIFT's alternate gear window that only applied appearances which overwrote the active stats gear.
DAoC's Dye, without the arbitrary material and weapon/armor restrictions.

No real argument here, except that I'd say GW2 has a better dye system than DAOC, by far. Unlocking dyes, then allowing you to freely change your armor colors is refreshing.
-Quite right. Point will be made more vague.



Crafting
Cosmetic appearance and stats as separate and interchangeable as balance will allow.
Resource sink is oikay if you NEED one, but should not be a time sink unless it's entertaining.
Crafting items must all be tradeable, and not require craft skill.

Time sinks are the baseline of an economy. If you remove time sinks, you remove the economy from the game. Not sure if that's a ramification you've considered.
-Currency has value based on time to aquire per unit, yes, but value also goes up as demand goes up by making money sinks. Unless it's fun to do, crafting should be a money sink, not a time sink, and I don't think there's an argument here unless you think I'm implying something greater besides just a crafting point.



Loot
No need to click or pick up common rewards like currencies.
Items drop as bags rather than the body itself be a container.
Just dropping crafting ingredients rather than trash loot.
All actions done in the field without item aid, identification, salvage, convert to gold, etc.

Not sure why you insist that items drop as separate objects from the corpse. From a programming perspective, it's simply easier to create one container instead of spawning multiples. There's no inherent advantage to spawning a bunch of crap on the ground, except that it clutters your interface.
-Size. Bodies of different sizes hidden in eachother. Decay rate on bodies vs bags possibly staying longer AND disappearing immediately when empty.
Allowing access to all crafting and item manipulation in the field will destroy town centers and "capital cities." With no reason to congregate there, nobody will. Not sure if that's an intention.
-Nonsense. You're smart enough to think farther than that on the issue yourself. Plenty to do in player hubs besides sell, and selling to vendors does not create social interaction or make people watch chat anyway.



Pets
Everyone can have pets.
No colision detection on pets.
Pets do not pull aggro, or their AI is smart enough to exactly follow with a wait command.

No. Everyone can have pets equals everyone must have a pet, and certain people hate pet classes (myself included, and a big reason I would never like SWTOR.) Unless the pets are so abysmal that nobody wants one, in which case you just have a broken mechanic. Bad design.
-True, but only under your assumed conditions. Permadeath, resource requirements... I was thinking of SWG's faction pets when I posted it which used a faction resource and did not respawn/rez. I will consider rewording it though because that's also MY assumed conditions, isn't it?




Sound
Using sound effects is okay, but music must never be a queue for anything crucial.

This is the biggest one I wanted to comment on. Sound is CRUCIAL to a game. It is one of the primary senses a human uses for feedback. Sound effects and music change the emotion, tension, and theme of entertainment an incredible amount.
-Effects yes, music... optional to the player. Neccesary because of how commonly people ignore the music and play their own, or disable it entirely to hear footsteps etc. Immersion through music is nice, but you can't realisticly count on it being heard when designing the game so music shouldn't be used as a quest clue or the signal to do anything.


Anything I didn't comment on was either because I don't consider it that important or it falls under the aforementioned Game Design 101 rule: "Everything must serve a purpose."

VKhaun
05-12-2012, 08:56 PM
Edit to prevent spam. :)

Boxy Brown
05-13-2012, 11:19 AM
I think a game still needs battlegrounds, something small (6-10 per side) with a clear objective that can be played in under 45 minutes normally.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement. Instanced PvP of any sort ruined MMO PvP, and that's just the way I feel about it. An arena system would work if it was purely for fun and offered NO rewards whatsoever. Perfect MMO PvP is one of two things: The first is PvP for PvP's sake, where there are no benefits, no rewards, nothing beyond trying to be the best, or progressing your character if there's some type of RA system. The second is world PvP with real time consequences for winning/losing, such as actually conquering enemy lands and having all the conquered people pay taxes or something like that. Anything else is just an addon. You can never have enough different battlegrounds with different maps and different objectives to keep people like me entertained for more than a few weeks.

People always spout off saying, "Bleh blarg you need incentives you need incentives rabble rabble rabble." Not if your game is fun, you don't. If the combat is fun then people will play it and have fun. Incentives ruin games more often than they help them.

Sillywilly
05-13-2012, 12:38 PM
I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement. Instanced PvP of any sort ruined MMO PvP, and that's just the way I feel about it. An arena system would work if it was purely for fun and offered NO rewards whatsoever. Perfect MMO PvP is one of two things: The first is PvP for PvP's sake, where there are no benefits, no rewards, nothing beyond trying to be the best, or progressing your character if there's some type of RA system. The second is world PvP with real time consequences for winning/losing, such as actually conquering enemy lands and having all the conquered people pay taxes or something like that. Anything else is just an addon. You can never have enough different battlegrounds with different maps and different objectives to keep people like me entertained for more than a few weeks.

People always spout off saying, "Bleh blarg you need incentives you need incentives rabble rabble rabble." Not if your game is fun, you don't. If the combat is fun then people will play it and have fun. Incentives ruin games more often than they help them.

I'm gonna agree with Boxy about instanced PvsP.

I think WoW made it the fad. I think Warhammer was the first big experiment in seeing how well it would be recepted by the true PvsP crowd. (DAoC veterans). I think lesser amounts of queing in Star Wars even though warzones are 1-49 instead of just every 10 levels like Warhammer says exactly how the majority feels about it.

Ero Elohim
05-13-2012, 12:42 PM
I think small, arena-style PvP is great. I'm less enthused about huge 100v100 battles because I feel they become unmanageable spamfests and that isn't fun. However, I really dislike small battlegrounds where it's 15-20 people per side. It's just enough people that there's little chance of it being a fair fight (usually little "fights" where it's 10v5 or 1v4 or something) and the game is more about herding your cats to the objectives better than the other team.

Ozoron
05-13-2012, 12:46 PM
...People always spout off saying, "Bleh blarg you need incentives you need incentives rabble rabble rabble." Not if your game is fun, you don't. If the combat is fun then people will play it and have fun. Incentives ruin games more often than they help them.

The problem with that line of thought is that everyone isn't just playing the game for PvP. While I would love that, it simply isn't the case. If people don't have an incentive to be there then you might lose out in making people fall in love with WvW/RvR. If you don't give a reason for people to come out and defend their world then People that might otherwise be there might be doing PvE content. I'm sure you know as the population declines in RvR the fun factor declines with it.

Also progressing your character via an RA system or something similar actually is an incentive to PvP. Although your only doing it to get better there were times where I would do things I didn't consider fun (zerging) in order to be more succesful in small-man/ 8v8

Boxy Brown
05-13-2012, 02:56 PM
The problem with that line of thought is that everyone isn't just playing the game for PvP. While I would love that, it simply isn't the case. If people don't have an incentive to be there then you might lose out in making people fall in love with WvW/RvR. If you don't give a reason for people to come out and defend their world then People that might otherwise be there might be doing PvE content. I'm sure you know as the population declines in RvR the fun factor declines with it.

Also progressing your character via an RA system or something similar actually is an incentive to PvP. Although your only doing it to get better there were times where I would do things I didn't consider fun (zerging) in order to be more succesful in small-man/ 8v8

I mean, in your argument, you literally just outlined the thing that I feel is wrong with PvP mindset in today's MMOs. That's the way you feel about it, and that's fine, but I'd much rather PvP against a small community who were only doing it because the combat is fun and enjoyable than PvP against a million nameless people who only care about getting the newest set of gear or what have you. In fact, that's my point. Keep your (not you personally, when I say you I'm talking about the developers) PvE incentive BS the hell away from my PvP experience. Getting PvE players to experience PvP is not at all what I'm concerned about. In fact, that's the very thing that I feel is wrong. Developers have been trying to sell PvP to PvEers. If the PvP is fun, then people who love PvP will take part in it. If the PvP is incentive driven, then sure, PvE players may want to do it, but to me it makes PvP feel like an addon, or a glorified version of PvE where it all comes down to grinding away instanced battles to get XY and Z incentive.

Ozoron
05-13-2012, 03:22 PM
I mean, in your argument, you literally just outlined the thing that I feel is wrong with PvP mindset in today's MMOs. That's the way you feel about it, and that's fine, but I'd much rather PvP against a small community who were only doing it because the combat is fun and enjoyable than PvP against a million nameless people who only care about getting the newest set of gear or what have you. In fact, that's my point. Keep your (not you personally, when I say you I'm talking about the developers) PvE incentive BS the hell away from my PvP experience. Getting PvE players to experience PvP is not at all what I'm concerned about. In fact, that's the very thing that I feel is wrong. Developers have been trying to sell PvP to PvEers. If the PvP is fun, then people who love PvP will take part in it. If the PvP is incentive driven, then sure, PvE players may want to do it, but to me it makes PvP feel like an addon, or a glorified version of PvE where it all comes down to grinding away instanced battles to get XY and Z incentive.

I think your placing words in my mouth right now. I'm not trying to get players to PvP for gear etc just a reason to be in the area like a serverwide buff so they can go XP afterwards and feel like they deserved the benefit etc. And are you really going to argue that RvR style PvP is more fun with less players? Think about the Daoc incentives, they didn't give you gear but If someone wanted or needed money ( back when DF seals were the way to make money) they would try to get a keep raid together to gain control of it.

Boxy Brown
05-13-2012, 03:38 PM
Yes, I am arguing that. I think you're forgetting that I'm a Mordred player. I PvP to beat other players and rub it in their faces. No incentives, nothing other than my own character progression and bragging rights. Too many players means there's no notoriety among enemies, which is a huge deal for me. And along those Mordred lines, it's understandable that I have a few hangups about PvP incentives, since the introduction of relics to Mordred made one guild so incredibly and stupidly overpowered that it almost ruined the server for everyone. In fact, even years after that guild disbanded, no other guild came CLOSE to the total number of RPs that they had on the server. They had something like 600 million guild RPs, the next highest when the herald shut down was only like 300 million, and it was because Sin Vida monopolized all six relics for years. As soon as they introduced external incentives to PvP it pretty much ruined everything.

Ozoron
05-13-2012, 04:50 PM
Mordred was a server entirely aimed at PvP with PvE only as a grind to get an advantage in PvP. I can't think of any MMO out right now or any MMO coming out that has that mindset. If you have a game that is entirely aimed at PvP of course you won't need incentives because only PvP'ers will be playing the game. The problem is that not enough people enjoy that gameplay to begin with.

My point is in today's MMO market a healthy PvP system needs incentives that don't ruin the fun for people playing just for PvP but also keep the action up by bringing in PvE players.

Pyrrhus
05-13-2012, 07:04 PM
The problem is that not enough people enjoy that gameplay to begin with.

Weird, I thought LoL/DoTA/HoN were pretty much ALL PvP and there are droves of people playing those games. Though that is a stretch in terms of gameplay and scale to compare them to an MMORPG.


My point is in today's MMO market a healthy PvP system needs incentives that don't ruin the fun for people playing just for PvP but also keep the action up by bringing in PvE players.

If there were any incentives it should be along the lines of the Tower/Keep bonus system from DAoC, and nothing else. Maybe horizontal progession through an RR/RA system.

VKhaun
05-13-2012, 07:40 PM
I think if you look at other types of competetive gaming, what we're missing is the equivalent of betting. Advanced playing card games hit all these points you guys are making by both by being their own incentive to play an interesting card game in what is essentially free for all PvP, and by having the incentive there of winning or losing chips/money.

Decently balanced group PvP is, IMHO, the single easiest way to give an MMO and end-game. Typical MMO incentives (gear, abilities, stat buffs) are also the single easiest way to completely RUIN end-game PvP both through changes and through defeating the purpose by forcing devs to constantly dev/balance for it rather than making actual new MMO content. We need some kind of MMO gambling equivalent and I don't have an easy answer as to how that would work. I'm just saying that's the facet our type of gaming is missing.

Ozoron
05-13-2012, 07:51 PM
Weird, I thought LoL/DoTA/HoN were pretty much ALL PvP and there are droves of people playing those games. Though that is a stretch in terms of gameplay and scale to compare them to an MMORPG.



If there were any incentives it should be along the lines of the Tower/Keep bonus system from DAoC, and nothing else. Maybe horizontal progession through an RR/RA system.

lol, i guess what i meant to say is people don't like that gameplay in their mmo's.


I think if you look at other types of competetive gaming, what we're missing is the equivalent of betting. Advanced playing card games hit all these points you guys are making by both by being their own incentive to play an interesting card game in what is essentially free for all PvP, and by having the incentive there of winning or losing chips/money.

Decently balanced group PvP is, IMHO, the single easiest way to give an MMO and end-game. Typical MMO incentives (gear, abilities, stat buffs) are also the single easiest way to completely RUIN end-game PvP both through changes and through defeating the purpose by forcing devs to constantly dev/balance for it rather than making actual new MMO content. We need some kind of MMO gambling equivalent and I don't have an easy answer as to how that would work. I'm just saying that's the facet our type of gaming is missing.

Maybe have weekly arena style tournament you can enter in with gold and the top 4 teams get a cut of the money and there team gets recognition by the server etc? Could be intersting

I can't think of how to get anything like this to work with open world PvP though.

VKhaun
05-14-2012, 04:30 AM
Why do you suppose the 'return to main town' abilities are always on long timers?
Usually 1hr, and haven't seen less than 30min I don't think.

I'm tempted to throw that on there, like just give them a really short timer to prevent people from messing with the server. Maybe 5min or so. But I don't really understand why they have hour timers in the first place so I hessitate to add it.

Boxy Brown
05-14-2012, 12:09 PM
If you don't want to read my rant, then skip to the bottom for my final point.

I beg to differ with you, Ozoron, on your assumption that not enough people will PvP in a game only to PvP. You can most certainly develop a healthy PvP population by offering nothing else in your game. I mean, look at DAoC freeshards, or WoW private servers. The most populated ones (at least when I played them) existed strictly for PvP. You got instant max level, instant capped gear, and the objective was just to beat everyone else to an e-bloody pulp. Sure, when you're talking about DAoC, you've got RR, and that can be viewed as an incentive, but the trend was not, "get RR13 and roll another character because now you've won the game and there are no more incentives for you to PvP." The trend was, "Oh sweet, I'm RR13, now I have Purge 3, IP 3, Mastery of Blocking 5, Mastery of Pain 5, etc. etc. to own people with even harder."

I do agree that not everyone plays games to PvP, and that's a pretty obvious statement. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the hardcore PvP community is the vast minority. However, I still stick by my statement that I actually prefer it that way. Even in DAoC RvR, I think I only participated in 1 relic raid over my ten year span of playing the game. Before Mordred existed and after it died, I only participated in the competitive solo/smallman/8v8 community. There were fewer people, there were no nameless hordes, and everyone knew everyone else. I prefer it that way. Don't get me wrong, I love owning noobs, it revs my engine. Stomping bad pugs was always worth a laugh. But it's not NEARLY as satisfying as owning a group full of people that you know are phenomenal players, then shit talking them in IRC for ten minutes until they show up for a rematch.

So on the one hand, you've got PvP based on incentives, and on the other hand, you've got PvP for PvP's sake. It seems to me, with my limited knowledge of game design, that incentive based PvP is an excuse to not finely tune and polish your PvP system. I think that inherent in the idea of incentives for PvP is an admittance of an element of lacking in your game (or just shitty choices by developers that ruin already awesome PvP systems, but let's not go there). "The PvP in our game isn't fun enough to stand on its own merits? Ok, let's give players a reason to do it." The point of PvP, in my opinion, is to be fun. And beyond that, on a more personal note, the point is to beat other people so they know you're the best. As I believe has been established, PvP for PvP's sake is a viable system (eg. Mordred, DAoC freeshards, MOBAs, FPS games). People will play it if it's fun. This trend does not suddenly disappear when we exclusively look at MMOs. The thing about MMOs, as you know, is that they have to include other elements in their game, and the trend right now is to market to PvEers instead of PvPers, because PvP lovers are all getting their fix from LoL and MW3 (kind of like what I'm doing right now).

So here's my final point, having said all that: I agree with you, for the most part. In my perfect world, PvP would stand alone and everyone would play it because it was awesome and fun and gave them a sense of accomplishment just because they won a fight. That alone would be incentive enough to play the game. However, that's an unrealistic expectation. I'm just butthurt because I don't want my PvP to be about achieving something, I want it to be about chaos and killing, and MMO gamers like me are a dying breed. I represent an ever-diminishing niche in the competitive MMO market, and like a dying star in its last throes of fusion, we're about to blink out of existence. But it's not all bad; we had our game. Beyond just having that game, we had our server. And it was amazing, and it was beautiful, and everyone who played there regularly throughout the years will tell you the same thing: that no game that has existed, or in all likelihood ever will exist, could bring together all the PvE, PvP, and community elements that made Mordred such a unique corner of cyberspace.

trol
05-14-2012, 04:37 PM
Number of factions/teams > 2.

make it four factions and randomly change who are allies and enemies every set time period (every two weeks, every month, etc..).

Ozoron
05-14-2012, 05:37 PM
[/COLOR]

make it four factions and randomly change who are allies and enemies every set time period (every two weeks, every month, etc..).
That won't work. You need three seperate teams at least. If there are only two teams in open area PvP the team that is winning will crush the other team and camp the area. When there is three teams the team that is losing is ignored by the other two because people flock to where the most action will be.

Valec
05-14-2012, 05:43 PM
That won't work. You need three seperate teams at least. If there are only two teams in open area PvP the team that is winning will crush the other team and camp the area. When there is three teams the team that is losing is ignored by the other two because people flock to where the most action will be.

Agreed. If it's 4+, alliances may not ever need to be temporary, since there will probably always be people to kill. If you have the majority of players in your alliance, the balance of power wouldn't likely tip in any reasonable amount of time. The result, i'd imagine, would be pretty boring for everyone.

Boxy Brown
05-14-2012, 09:56 PM
I think three is the perfect number. Provides the optimal system of checks and balances without feeling overbearing.

VKhaun
05-14-2012, 10:51 PM
I think three is the perfect number. Provides the optimal system of checks and balances without feeling overbearing.

What makes it optimal?

Pyrrhus
05-14-2012, 11:12 PM
Boxy... AMEN to your last post on page 1.

Valec
05-14-2012, 11:32 PM
What makes it optimal?

Mostly that the most successful faction-based PVP-centric have had 3 factions. I suppose that's allowed us to see it in action, and when there are only 3 factions to choose from.. one will always be number one, so the lesser two almost have to gang up on them.

It's a self-balancing equation, imo.

Sillywilly
05-15-2012, 02:38 AM
I think three is the perfect number. Provides the optimal system of checks and balances without feeling overbearing.

You founding father fan-boi.

I agree.