Persistency and PvP

Sleepless night, so I thought I'd blather on this otherwise dead mailing list.

Every successful persistent on-line game effectively sits on a player-vs-environment (PvE) model with additional, optional player-vs-player (PvP).  Ultima On-line is the closest I can think of where there's prevalent PvP, however it can be ignored if you choose (aside from the occasional PK) -- you don't have to engage in PvP in order to advance, you can still advance in other axes of gameplay (trade skills, socializing, PvE).

The popular games that provide PvP as their main source of entertainment are not persistent.  Game play is limited to a session, a level, or until some end-game scenario is reached.  This is true whether we're talking about a shooter with 10 minute levels or a turn based play-by-mail strategy game that spans 30 days.  The point remains the same -- players are competing until some fixed, known limit is reached and a winner is declared.

This differentiation never dawned on me until very recently, primarily because I never put much thought into it.

The reason for this is obvious now that I think about it -- persistent games that stress PvP will tend to favor players that have been playing longer.  This is true in a PvE level treadmill as well, but the difference is that in a PvP environment stronger players are actually detrimental to the newer players instead of somewhere between neutral and beneficial as you find in PvE oriented games.

In a PvE game, with or without minor elements of PvP, the player has one key ability going for them at all times -- the ability to avoid conflict with other players.  They can do this by pursuing the PvE aspect and, when necessary, logging out to avoid the PvP elements.  When you're logged out of a PvE game, you're not put in a position of "losing".

Contrast this with a persistent PvP game.  Either there is a winning scenario, at which point your absence will be detrimental to you or your team's chances, or there is no winning scenario, at which point the PvP element feels rather, well, pointless.  Do you artificially constrain things so that all out victory is impossible so instead everyone is simply jockeying for some kind of temporal superiority (similar to team PvP in an RPG where they may try to capture an artifact or stronghold for as long as possible).

For individual competition (i.e. not team based), this is even worse -- what happens when you join the game late?  Do you rely on social engineering such as guilds (effectively informal teams) to protect you while you gain power?  Or are you just screwed?

So based on my whopping hour of thought on this, I just don't see any obvious or simple solutions to these problems.  The proposed solutions I've seen in various interviews are cumbersome hacks that don't address the core problem, instead they try to fix the symptoms.  For example, a massively multiplayer RTS that "turtles" logged out players can prevent some of the obvious problems, but it sure doesn't actually make the game any better for casual players or latecomers.

I guess there's a real good reason why we've yet to see a popular persistent on-line game that supports PvP as its core experience (or have I overlooked something?).

Anyway, no real point, just typing up some thoughts while I try to get a better grasp on some of these issues.

-Hook



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com - A 128-bit supercerts will
allow you to extend the highest allowed 128 bit encryption to all your 
clients even if they use browsers that are limited to 40 bit encryption. 
Get a guide here:http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0030en
_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-design mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design
Archives:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6