Comments on: And maybe still a bit harder… http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/ Bringing back the carebear stare... Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:02:34 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Kreation’s Edge » Blog Archive » Positive and Negative Sum PVP http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-993 Kreation’s Edge » Blog Archive » Positive and Negative Sum PVP Tue, 01 Jan 2008 16:37:17 +0000 http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-993 [...] came up with a great discussion on Positive-Negative Sum PVP and compelling reasons for games to include Negative Sum in the context of an [...] [...] came up with a great discussion on Positive-Negative Sum PVP and compelling reasons for games to include Negative Sum in the context of an [...]

]]> By: Swift Voyager http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-965 Swift Voyager Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:32:55 +0000 http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-965 On further reflection, I was trying to think outside the box and realized that I can't name any tabletop games that have positive sum PvP outcomes. All the classic games: card games, dice, checkers, chess, monopoly, etc. end up with one person holding all the money or all the cards etc, while the losers are left without. RPG's like D&D had me thinking positive sum, but then I realized that D&D is mainly a PvE game. If you played PvP D&D then it would certainly be negative sum if you played by the official rules. As far as my brain can think of, you have to look at single player games and PvE games to really find a wealth of games that follow the scheme of "if you play long enough and keep trying, you'll eventually win". Maybe that explains why the WoW style of play is more appealing to the younger crowd of gamers who grew up with console games, while the negative sum gaming crowd (like Eve) seems to attract older gamers who likely grew up on tabletop games with harsher consequences for losing? On further reflection, I was trying to think outside the box and realized that I can’t name any tabletop games that have positive sum PvP outcomes. All the classic games: card games, dice, checkers, chess, monopoly, etc. end up with one person holding all the money or all the cards etc, while the losers are left without. RPG’s like D&D had me thinking positive sum, but then I realized that D&D is mainly a PvE game. If you played PvP D&D then it would certainly be negative sum if you played by the official rules.

As far as my brain can think of, you have to look at single player games and PvE games to really find a wealth of games that follow the scheme of “if you play long enough and keep trying, you’ll eventually win”. Maybe that explains why the WoW style of play is more appealing to the younger crowd of gamers who grew up with console games, while the negative sum gaming crowd (like Eve) seems to attract older gamers who likely grew up on tabletop games with harsher consequences for losing?

]]> By: LadyPao http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-964 LadyPao Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:26:37 +0000 http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-964 @Talyn - I hear you on your point that all the groups in an AV PUG should be rewarded equally for equal, but different, work in a BG to win. But what happens in reality, at least in my many hours of AV (to exalted) that the groups fracture, and maybe one or two groups actually work together. (And then there's the AFKers in the cave) Worse is when one or two people try to direct the others, only to meet with derision, or silence (/ignore). That's why I said the BG queueing system needs to be reworked, so that teams who know strategy, have a leader, and are obedient to that leader during battle will be rewarded - for working together and winning. Perhaps doing away with the 6 group PUG setup should be tossed completely. Only complete teams of X number can get in. I guess then it kind of becomes more like Arena teams (?) - never did Arena so I am not sure. I took a class on group dynamics years ago, and the one useful thing (lol) I took away from it is the concept of when new groups form, they go thru predictable stages - forming, storming (jockeying for position, rank, relationships), norming (settling down to work), performing, and then I think the last is re-forming (as members leave and what not) - and the cycle often repeats itself. I've observed this pattern time and time again in groups I have been in since. In the AV PUGs, the group never gets past storming, and sometimes doesn't even make it to forming. So IMO and experience PUGs don't work in a group that needs communication, strategy and teamwork to win. Same reason raiding doesn't work in PUGs. As I read through all the posts here, and elsewhere over time, it seems to me more and more that games shouldn't try to combine PvE and PvP - as Swift says, any changes to one, impact the other just too greatly. Or maybe they just haven't gotten it right yet - I am now playing Tabula Rasa and PvP seems to mesh with PvE quite well. While I haven't participated yet, from what I understand you must be in a PvP clan (PvP status being decided by the clan leader) and the PvP is with other clans. What the rewards are other than e-peenage, I don't know. But the gear you gain in the PvE game, and the skills and crafting you achieve are used in PvP. No special battlegrounds or gear ladders. And if you enjoy the occasional zerg fest, there are 'control point' outposts that are periodically taken over by the enemy NPCs, and can be taken back - with XP, loot and a repeatable quest reward. Anyway, I've rambled on. PvP/PvE balance is a tough nut to crack, especially if you try to make everyone happy - which is another way of saying maximize your ROI - more people happy = more revenue. @Talyn – I hear you on your point that all the groups in an AV PUG should be rewarded equally for equal, but different, work in a BG to win. But what happens in reality, at least in my many hours of AV (to exalted) that the groups fracture, and maybe one or two groups actually work together. (And then there’s the AFKers in the cave) Worse is when one or two people try to direct the others, only to meet with derision, or silence (/ignore). That’s why I said the BG queueing system needs to be reworked, so that teams who know strategy, have a leader, and are obedient to that leader during battle will be rewarded – for working together and winning. Perhaps doing away with the 6 group PUG setup should be tossed completely. Only complete teams of X number can get in. I guess then it kind of becomes more like Arena teams (?) – never did Arena so I am not sure.
I took a class on group dynamics years ago, and the one useful thing (lol) I took away from it is the concept of when new groups form, they go thru predictable stages – forming, storming (jockeying for position, rank, relationships), norming (settling down to work), performing, and then I think the last is re-forming (as members leave and what not) – and the cycle often repeats itself. I’ve observed this pattern time and time again in groups I have been in since. In the AV PUGs, the group never gets past storming, and sometimes doesn’t even make it to forming. So IMO and experience PUGs don’t work in a group that needs communication, strategy and teamwork to win. Same reason raiding doesn’t work in PUGs.
As I read through all the posts here, and elsewhere over time, it seems to me more and more that games shouldn’t try to combine PvE and PvP – as Swift says, any changes to one, impact the other just too greatly. Or maybe they just haven’t gotten it right yet – I am now playing Tabula Rasa and PvP seems to mesh with PvE quite well. While I haven’t participated yet, from what I understand you must be in a PvP clan (PvP status being decided by the clan leader) and the PvP is with other clans. What the rewards are other than e-peenage, I don’t know. But the gear you gain in the PvE game, and the skills and crafting you achieve are used in PvP. No special battlegrounds or gear ladders. And if you enjoy the occasional zerg fest, there are ‘control point’ outposts that are periodically taken over by the enemy NPCs, and can be taken back – with XP, loot and a repeatable quest reward.
Anyway, I’ve rambled on. PvP/PvE balance is a tough nut to crack, especially if you try to make everyone happy – which is another way of saying maximize your ROI – more people happy = more revenue.

]]> By: syncaine http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-961 syncaine Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:27:41 +0000 http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-961 Good point Swift. I don't think I was arguing as much to change WoW, but the overall concept of neg sum vs pos sum PvP. I just don't think pos sum PvP really encourages the type of behavior that makes PvP fun in the first place. But yea, for neg sum to work (like in EVE or UO), you have to have an entirely different set of rules, which is what I hope Warhammer strays closer to. Good point Swift. I don’t think I was arguing as much to change WoW, but the overall concept of neg sum vs pos sum PvP. I just don’t think pos sum PvP really encourages the type of behavior that makes PvP fun in the first place. But yea, for neg sum to work (like in EVE or UO), you have to have an entirely different set of rules, which is what I hope Warhammer strays closer to.

]]> By: Swift Voyager http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-960 Swift Voyager Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:18:02 +0000 http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-960 I recently worked with a hardcore WoW player, and I'm a hardcore Eve player. We talked alot about the two games and constantly compared one to the other, searching for ways that the two games are different (not fighting about which one is best). I knew there were some fundamental things about WoW that were not the same as Eve, but it always surprised me how much a small change in game mechanics can influence player activities. What I think I'm coming away with personally is that either one can work, but positive vs negative sum PvP is the kind of difference that requires many other game mechanics to be put in place. Without supporting mechanics it just doesn't work. For example, you couln't just take Eve and change it so that PvP doesn't cost you your ship when you lose. You would need to change half the game in order to keep the balance of sinks/faucets in check for example. The whole economy would collapse because there would no longer be a need for people to buy fleets of ships. So, to say something like "WoW would be better with negative sum" you really need to think if terms of how that would change WoW into a completely different game. I recently worked with a hardcore WoW player, and I’m a hardcore Eve player. We talked alot about the two games and constantly compared one to the other, searching for ways that the two games are different (not fighting about which one is best). I knew there were some fundamental things about WoW that were not the same as Eve, but it always surprised me how much a small change in game mechanics can influence player activities.

What I think I’m coming away with personally is that either one can work, but positive vs negative sum PvP is the kind of difference that requires many other game mechanics to be put in place. Without supporting mechanics it just doesn’t work. For example, you couln’t just take Eve and change it so that PvP doesn’t cost you your ship when you lose. You would need to change half the game in order to keep the balance of sinks/faucets in check for example. The whole economy would collapse because there would no longer be a need for people to buy fleets of ships.

So, to say something like “WoW would be better with negative sum” you really need to think if terms of how that would change WoW into a completely different game.

]]> By: syncaine http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-958 syncaine Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:51:04 +0000 http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-958 Exactly, you can't apply negative sum to WoW, it would never work. But remove epics in WoW, make crafting items be the 'cream of the crop', and negative sum begins to look reasonable. Exactly, you can’t apply negative sum to WoW, it would never work. But remove epics in WoW, make crafting items be the ‘cream of the crop’, and negative sum begins to look reasonable.

]]> By: Tholal http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-954 Tholal Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:24:08 +0000 http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-954 Player looting works when items arent the main focus of the game. When your game is item-centric, then this concept (and many other interesting ideas) are unworkable. In UO, when I died and lost my magic sword it was always a bummer. But, I also knew that I could visit any number of shops to find something similar or even have something crafted for me that would be serviceable, though not quite as powerful. And the crafting part of a game really benefits from introducing concepts that can result in item loss. Another great system that becomes an underused sidenote in the WoW-type games. Player looting works when items arent the main focus of the game. When your game is item-centric, then this concept (and many other interesting ideas) are unworkable.

In UO, when I died and lost my magic sword it was always a bummer. But, I also knew that I could visit any number of shops to find something similar or even have something crafted for me that would be serviceable, though not quite as powerful. And the crafting part of a game really benefits from introducing concepts that can result in item loss. Another great system that becomes an underused sidenote in the WoW-type games.

]]> By: Talyn http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-952 Talyn Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:32:04 +0000 http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-952 I don't mind the concept of player looting, although -- especially in the raid-centric games such as WoW -- I don't know if it's fair to actually lose a raid item. Perhaps if PvP loot equivalent to the gear you were wearing when you died drops for the victor? However, that solution also has little risk for the loser, and everyone can just wear welfare gear to PvP so that winners never get anything good. Maybe there's a reason player looting isn't around much anymore (as well as many other mechanics the so-called "hardcore" claim to miss from the older EQ/UO's): because they sound nice on paper but just don't work in practice. To LadyPao's first suggestion: exactly what determine's a "team" vs. your entire auto-raid-grouped "side" in AV? Your own small group? Since you're randomly inserted into the raid group, it's rarely practical for each Group to stick together, unless someone is manually moving players into balanced groups by class so every group has some dps, heals, etc. And in AV, if Groups 1 and 2 did stick together and worked very hard defending a point or two, Groups 3 and 4 went offensive and attacked the Boss NPC while Groups 5 and 6 worked equally hard defending their own base... are you implying any one of those groups should be rewarded more than another? Who's to decide who put in more "work?" Isn't the point of it all that ALL players involved in the entire battle-group promote teamwork that benefits the entire team not just their own little group? I don’t mind the concept of player looting, although — especially in the raid-centric games such as WoW — I don’t know if it’s fair to actually lose a raid item. Perhaps if PvP loot equivalent to the gear you were wearing when you died drops for the victor? However, that solution also has little risk for the loser, and everyone can just wear welfare gear to PvP so that winners never get anything good.

Maybe there’s a reason player looting isn’t around much anymore (as well as many other mechanics the so-called “hardcore” claim to miss from the older EQ/UO’s): because they sound nice on paper but just don’t work in practice.

To LadyPao’s first suggestion: exactly what determine’s a “team” vs. your entire auto-raid-grouped “side” in AV? Your own small group? Since you’re randomly inserted into the raid group, it’s rarely practical for each Group to stick together, unless someone is manually moving players into balanced groups by class so every group has some dps, heals, etc. And in AV, if Groups 1 and 2 did stick together and worked very hard defending a point or two, Groups 3 and 4 went offensive and attacked the Boss NPC while Groups 5 and 6 worked equally hard defending their own base… are you implying any one of those groups should be rewarded more than another? Who’s to decide who put in more “work?” Isn’t the point of it all that ALL players involved in the entire battle-group promote teamwork that benefits the entire team not just their own little group?

]]> By: LadyPao http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-950 LadyPao Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:28:34 +0000 http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-950 Aaah good points, hadn't thought of those :) Aaah good points, hadn’t thought of those :)

]]> By: syncaine http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-948 syncaine Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:37:03 +0000 http://syncaine.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/and-maybe-still-a-bit-harder/#comment-948 Well the case with scenario one would mean that if you DO have nice stuff, it's more than likely because not only do you know what you are doing, you likely have a good team behind you. It's like top-tier raiding, when something nice drops, it's given to the player who will make the most use of it, regardless of who's turn it is or other such casual (for lack of a better term) concepts. Also with items dropping, you would only use your best stuff when you go out with a team. If you are going out solo, you would grab stuff you can afford to lose. Well the case with scenario one would mean that if you DO have nice stuff, it’s more than likely because not only do you know what you are doing, you likely have a good team behind you. It’s like top-tier raiding, when something nice drops, it’s given to the player who will make the most use of it, regardless of who’s turn it is or other such casual (for lack of a better term) concepts.
Also with items dropping, you would only use your best stuff when you go out with a team. If you are going out solo, you would grab stuff you can afford to lose.

]]>