The Tri-poll: What does multiplayer mean to YOU?

[Fromhell]

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/572/feature/7496/Making-the-Jump-from-East-to-West-.html


ArcheAge Preview

[...]

For those who aren’t familiar with the game, there are two continents that are safe from PVP. But north of them, across the Sea of Serenity is the Land of Origin: ArcheAge’s big free-for-all PVP area. Buildings can be built, razed, fought over, and sieged. Alliances will be made and broken, friendships enriched, and enemies made. The Land of Origin is where castles are built, tenants on your land are taxed, and riches are earned by the players with the gall and wherewithal to build up and hold onto their empire. Additionally, it’s worth noting that XLGAMES has taken care to make the eastern safe continent reflect the eastern Asian aesthetic, while their western safe continent has a more medieval look and feel.

The big draw will be its sandbox nature, steering very far away from the tired “theme park” model. Everything about ArcheAge screams classic Ultima Online, and we caught up with XLGAMES’ Kyountae Kim to talk about the Korean launch, and the revival of the sandbox mentality. Kim told us that the initial success of the Korean launch was staggering. Even as the Korean market for MMOs is shifting to more competitive eSports titles, there’s still a demand for new and interesting takes on the MMORPG. The Korean players are sick and tired of the same old rehashed WoW-clones and in need of something refreshing. ArcheAge filled this need in Korea and the reception has been fantastic. [..]

 

[jabokai]

ArcheAge Preview

...

Is that a suggestion? Two thirds of the galaxy being PvE only (with the immersion destroying mechanic you claim not to like - not allowed to damage other players) with one third set aside for PvP?

Not sure of your point really. :S

 

[Fromhell]

Is that a suggestion? Two thirds of the galaxy being PvE only (with the immersion destroying mechanic you claim not to like - not allowed to damage other players) with one third set aside for PvP?

Not sure of your point really. :S

Rather pointing out a new sandbox game that has areas where player attacks are possible and can´t be avoided.

Pretty much like I imagine guarded/lawless systems.

 

[PacalB]

And I agreed to that about 10 posts ago, you are either blind or think that the switching is the only problem. I don´t want GROUPS... AT ALL.

Why? So you can have free reign on creating your own personal hellhole of a gaming universe through sheer numbers, then drag everyone else in? Let me guess, you're from the SA forums, yes? Sent over here to be to be their ED spam bot.

You may not want groups but fortunately FD know the importance of allowing people to get away from the total atery that goes along with the open mechanic you are struggling to push.

Sorry bub, no re-imagining of hell for you or your mates! It just not going to happen.

 

[Fromhell]

Why? So you can have free reign on creating your own personal hellhole of a gaming universe

drama queen?

Let me guess, you're from the SA forums, yes? Sent over here to be to be their ED spam bot.

SA? :S

You may not want groups but fortunately FD know the importance of allowing people to get away from the total atery
Sorry bub, no re-imagining of hell for you or your mates! It just not going to happen.

Yeah we´ll see about that... poll numbers and recent trends in game development are not on your side.. "mate".

 

[Caribou]

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/572/feature/7496/Making-the-Jump-from-East-to-West-.html

Speaking on pirates, Kyoungtae Kim told us that one area they’re continuing to watch and make adjustments to is the piracy system. Right now, the pirates are so active on the seas that they tend to keep the PVE and economy players away from ever stepping foot onto the Land or Origin. And so the dev team is working hard to find a way to balance things and make it possible for both types of players to coexist without ticking off either.

....Your fellow players won’t just be your combat army buddies. Everyone in the world will be your neighbor, your friend, your enemy, and your colleague. The experiences you make and the choices you make will shape the world in real and lasting ways...

Looks like they see the need for PvE also... the whole thing looks really good actually - adult minecraft sort of....

It has community - you can build a village, then role play a militia to protect the place, build walls do patrols etc... But of course all that hard work could be destroyed, just like in mine-craft (unless there is protection / locking).

I have to say that Elite is not comparable because you can create nothing, just accumulate wealth and fire-power (Brings me back to World of Tanks). And that is the saddest thing for me about this whole development. Tricks have been missed in other ways....

http://archeage-online.com/

 

[Fromhell]

I have to say that Elite is not comparable because you can create nothing, just accumulate wealth and fire-power (Brings me back to World of Tanks). And that is the saddest thing for me about this whole development. Tricks have been missed in other ways....

http://archeage-online.com/

Just comparing because it is a sandbox too.

Another sandbox example will be World of Darkness.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/...l-offer-you-a-world-of-vampires-to-conquer-bu

article on why non consensual PvP is important

http://www.wodnews.net/Blogs/tabid/82/Article/940/The-value-of-non-consensual-PvP.aspx

Everquest Next (biggest upcoming sandbox)
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/1...ook-what-does-a-sandbox-look-like-in-norrath/

"Meanwhile, in the effort to please everyone, MMO titles that went the themepark route ended up souring everyone. They tried to reach a balance among every prong of the multi-pronged spectrum and generally arrive at something in the center that's just not compelling enough to keep players' interest. But part of the blame goes to the design model. MMOs, with their level caps and on-rails gameplay, ironically resemble single-player games. Players pick up a single player game, work through the story and challenges, and when they reach the end, they walk away from it"

 

[Listeri69]

article on why non consensual PvP is important

http://www.wodnews.net/Blogs/tabid/82/Article/940/The-value-of-non-consensual-PvP.aspx

This is pretty much my whole view on the non-consensual PvP.....

 

[Steph]

I went for option 2 ("There are some areas of the galaxy where I cannot be attacked by other players") but with a caveat.

I don't know what "PvE" means - "Player vs Environment" perhaps, like Elite as was (i.e. NPC "baddies" and you) so couldn't comment there.

I have no problem with anyone being able to fire at anyone else but that it should be riskier for the aggressor in more developed systems so people learning the game can move around the inner worlds with a decent degree of safety and then branch out into the wider, more dangerous, universe later on.

This used to be the function of GalCop. I imagine that systems with imperial cruisers wandering around would do pretty much the same type of job.

So really I've gone for option "1.25". ;-)

 

[Caribou]

....ironically resemble single-player games. Players pick up a single player game, work through the story and challenges, and when they reach the end, they walk away from it"

Thats true...

Edit: reading the world of darkness arty... it's an interesting point of view actually the following is probably the most salient point.

The threat of the ganker is important. He is playing a part that needs to be played. He is making the world dangerous. He is giving you someone to dislike, and that gives you a chance to forge alliances with others who feel the same way. In the long term, that is what makes a game more interesting....

...comparing to book villain...
Most of us hate him. Nevertheless, he is necessary. It would be a nicer show (or book) if he never existed, but it would not be better. We want to be rid of him, but then we would lack a character to hate and fear, and we need that. He is a necessary conflict driver, someone who can make us worry for our favorites, someone against whom our heroes can rally. We want to see him stopped, to see him fail, but in order for that to be interesting, he must succeed often enough to present a real threat.

I need to think about this because whilst the "danger" is missing, the other side of the coin is also missing for me. There is no investment in what I am doing, unless I start playing "ironman" as people call it... Only Then I am in for one life, but the problem is that the Ganker could end a years investment in a moment. If I leave my ship for a moment to get the vast quantities of tea my wife consumes in a night (she's reading) then I come back to see my spinning headstone.... If Death isn't acceptable to me then I need to think what would be the balance in a game devoid of creativity and with little reason to group up beyond excluding others... World of Tanks is unashamedly about Team organization, strategy and tactics, with an element of unpredictability, but after a losing round you patch up and do it again. In Elite: D you die and start from scratch again...Unsatisfying....

Off to bed to consider this....

 

[DigitalDuck]

"Meanwhile, in the effort to please everyone, MMO titles that went the themepark route ended up souring everyone. They tried to reach a balance among every prong of the multi-pronged spectrum and generally arrive at something in the center that's just not compelling enough to keep players' interest. But part of the blame goes to the design model. MMOs, with their level caps and on-rails gameplay, ironically resemble single-player games. Players pick up a single player game, work through the story and challenges, and when they reach the end, they walk away from it"

Absolutely not applicable to creating separate universes, simply because you do not arrive at something in the centre. You're not creating a balance among every prong of the multi-pronged spectrum, you're creating a separate game for every prong. Each prong is catered for without compromise (with the possible exception of player numbers).

Meanwhile, trying to create PvE "safe zones" and other such attempts, including yours earlier, does in fact fall foul of this, because you are changing the gameplay for everyone.

However, Elite Dangerous is not an MMO, will not have level caps and on-rails gameplay, and not even a prominent story or challenge structure, and like the original Elite, will probably bear no resemblance to a typical single-player game, even when you are playing it single player.

 

[Susimetsa]

MMOs, with their level caps and on-rails gameplay, ironically resemble single-player games. Players pick up a single player game, work through the story and challenges, and when they reach the end, they walk away from it"

There are MANY single-player games that I've played again and again, such as Civilization 1-4, some computer RPGs and even some FPS games just to experience the story again.

In the case of Elite, you will have to get yourself into the mindset of people who love to play Sid Meier's Pirates! and other games that have no real ending but the one you make yourself. The point is simply to live the life and enjoy the setting and scenery.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Yeah we´ll see about that... poll numbers and recent trends in game development are not on your side..

The poll may be >50% for option 1 (which I voted for too), but that has to be understood in the context of the grouping mechanisms that Frontier has already told us about. I'm pretty sure that an "Option 0: Single-group PvP universe" would not be anywhere near as popular. (If that was there and option 1 wasn't, I'd have gone for option 3 instead, for example, even though I think that the "environment definition" problem is insoluble, just because it would be better than nothing)

As for "recent trends", "recent trends" in game development would suggest not trying to make a spacesim at all. So I expect Elite Dangerous will go against a lot of recent trends in gaming (just like the original...) and be a great game for it.

On "sandbox", the original Elite games were great at being a sandbox, and a lot of that is that you could play them how you wanted to. To extend that to multiplayer, you have to be able to choose who you play with. For some people that will be "as many others as possible", for others it will be "solo, or perhaps a few friends".

If they'd been going to make a more conventional single/multi-player game, where you either played solo, or arranged to play with a few friends on your own server, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, but Elite Dangerous would still be very much a sandbox game. The grouping mechanism seems to be an excellent way to make one game which can be played single-player, multi-player, or massively multi-player, as the player chooses.

On that link praising non-consensual PvP ... the main argument seems to be that the developers can't create content faster than the players can consume it, so you need the players to be able to "create content" at each other to fill in the gaps. Given the scale - and the use of procedural generation - of Elite Dangerous, I really don't think that will be a problem here. Just visiting all inhabited systems would take a dedicated player months; never mind doing interesting things while there...

 

[DarkWalker]

If it´s available I´ll use it, people will ruin their own experience, PvAll mode will be useless because it doesn´t give any benefit, why should anyone play it?
Again, missing risk vs. reward kills the PvP enabled environment, but hey as long as the PvE-only minority gets their way.

You know, WoW has both PvP and PvE servers. Playing in PvP servers doesn't offer any additional rewards, and on top of that players can level and gear up in PvE servers to then transfer to PvP ones.

Despite that, between 38% (in the US) and 75% (in Brazil) of the players, depending on country, choose to play in PvP servers. And that in a game that is constantly referred as carebear territory.

Seems like your fears are an illusion, sincerely.

There is a term for individuals like you. It is called "Carebear".

As if I cared. My typical avatar in forums like this is actually a carebear, I just skipped that avatar here because someone else had the idea first

You´re not everyone else. "Everyone else" is the majority which you clearly do not belong to if you check the poll results. You want to exclude a major factor of online multiplayer and reap all the same rewards with less effort.

1. The results from this pool aren't so clear cut because, due to the existence of groups, players won't have to be exposed to unwanted PvP even with the first option.
2. The pool about whether players want PvP, PvE, or PvAll (http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5767) had 36,5% of the players choosing only PvE. Fairly more than the 25% this pool suggests. The PvP/PvE/PvAll pool also had more players answering.
3. The amount of players answering those pools not only isn't significant enough to make safe assumptions, it's also plagued with self-selection bias (as any single web pool, to be honest, which is why Notch from Minecraft fame was elected the second most influential person in the world in the Time's annual pool).
4. In most MMO forums I've ever taken part, and in previous pools I've seen better evidence about, PvPers (and raiders, and to a point RPers) are grossly overrepresented. In Star Citizen, for example, forum pools with close to 1K answers indicated that just 20% of the players wanted mostly PvE; the official pool with almost 8K players answering, which was able to reach players that don't participate in the forums, had over half of the respondents saying they prefer to only engage in PvE, with 75% (when adding solo and group players) saying that what they want to play the most is PvE.

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/572/feature/7496/Making-the-Jump-from-East-to-West-.html


ArcheAge Preview

[...]

Not sure if it's related to Archeage's take on PvP, but Archeage seems to have dropped out of the top 10 most played online games in Korea (or to be hanging at the bottom of that list, depending on which site you trust), and is changing to a F2P model. And Korea is supposed to be much more enthusiastic about non-consensual PvP than the west.

(BTW, the breakdown of the list I saw for May has 2 MOBAs, 2 outright RTS games, one mission-based FPS, one sports game, one action RPG with only consequence-less arenas for PvP, two MMOs with some degree of non-consensual PvP, and one MMO with absolutely no non-consensual PvP; in other words, despite the fact all those 10 games have PvP in some shape, only two of them have any non-consensual PvP at all. The list is at http://news.mmosite.com/content/2013-05-13/_weekly_top_10_korean_gaming_list.shtml .)

Yeah we´ll see about that... poll numbers and recent trends in game development are not on your side.. "mate".

Like how every single big budget MMO launched in the west in the last few years didn't have non-consensual PvP? At most, they allowed the player to choose between PvP and PvE servers, with players in PvE servers completely free from non-consensual PvP.

Like how both Darkfall and Mortal Online lost most of their players, with Mortal Online going F2P and Darkfall launching a new version that now includes a no-PvP zone?

Like how EvE seems to be the only MMO that forces non-consensual PvP on all players that was able to retain more than 100K players outside Asia?

Like how ArcheAge is now turning F2P even in Korea?

Like how Diablo 3 not only launched without any way to PvP at all, but even a year after launch it still only has a meaningless arena with no consequences or rewards?

Sorry, the trend seems to be to get rid of non-consensual PvP for every game not called EVE.

Just comparing because it is a sandbox too.

Another sandbox example will be World of Darkness.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/...l-offer-you-a-world-of-vampires-to-conquer-bu

The sad thing is that this game, that is guaranteed to NOT come this year or the next, basically killed White Wolf as a publisher. If not for the old writers leaving the company and creating a new one called Onyx Path, and licensing back the World of Darkness universe from CCP, we wouldn't have World of Darkness products anymore.

Now, the question: why is the World of Darkness MMO taking so long? Why does it currently only have a skeleton crew working on it? The World of Darkness MMO has been in pre-production for almost 7 years already, and is guaranteed to take at least two more years. Given the sheer lack of good MMOs with non-consensual PvP, if CCP really thought that game style would sell, it would make more sense to press ahead and release the game as soon as possible. Instead CCP went ahead with a FPS game that only has consensual PvP (as it doesn't have PvE the only reason to log is to play the PvP, and it plays more like a lobby-based shooter than a MMO anyway) while slowing down development of the WoD MMO.

article on why non consensual PvP is important

http://www.wodnews.net/Blogs/tabid/82/Article/940/The-value-of-non-consensual-PvP.aspx

I sincerely disagree with that post. Also, if non-consensual PvP was good for games, I don't think UO would have seen PKers cited as the #1 reason players left the game.

Everquest Next (biggest upcoming sandbox)
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/1...ook-what-does-a-sandbox-look-like-in-norrath/

Right now everything about EQNext is guesses and conjecture. However, the facts SOE recently got rid of Pirates of the Burning Sea, one of the only two game in it's lineup that had non-consensual PvP (the other being Wizardry Online); and that both EQ and EQ2 are mainly PvE games, with the sheer majority of their respective player bases playing in PvE servers; doesn't bode well for those that wish EQNext to be open PvP.

"Meanwhile, in the effort to please everyone, MMO titles that went the themepark route ended up souring everyone. They tried to reach a balance among every prong of the multi-pronged spectrum and generally arrive at something in the center that's just not compelling enough to keep players' interest. But part of the blame goes to the design model. MMOs, with their level caps and on-rails gameplay, ironically resemble single-player games. Players pick up a single player game, work through the story and challenges, and when they reach the end, they walk away from it"

From that same article:

"""Games have tried hard to create "massive" worlds that hold thousands of players, but the larger the world, the greater the number of antisocial, and even psychopathic, players."""

So, the author is basically asking for EQNext to NOT use what, in this pool, is option 1

"""Players have created amazing things using Minecraft, but they've also set up incredible worlds as well, and what's even more amazing is what a wide variety of playstyles and age groups it brings in. You can visit the Massively Minecraft server (no relation to Massively.com) for a family friendly, well-organized, and creative community of players, and then on the other end of the spectrum, you can participate in a "Hunger Games" PvP server match, with a total free-for-all to the death. Minecraft is successful not because of 16-bit block worlds but because of what goes on inside the game. Minecraft is the framework, but the players are the real diamonds."""

Seems almost like a plea for separating players into groups, allowing players to spend their time with other players that share interests. In other words, the article is basically suggesting to separate the hardcore PvPers from the PvE players, while letting players jump between those groups if they so wish.

 

[Listeri69]

I'm not that bothered about what you want to play in personally. But I don't agree you should be allowed to switch between PvP and PvE at will. IF i've gone the constantly looking over my shoulder route I don't want some one who's carebeared his way on the PvE being able to drop in when they finally think they have a ship they can do damage with. as far as I'm concerned if you start in PvP or PvE that where you stay until you make a new commander or restart the game.......

 

[Cthulhus]

Please stop with PvE, PVP... I just one a more one MMORPG style ... I just need something unique !

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

drama queen?

You rang ?

 

[Caribou]

Seems almost like a plea for separating players into groups, allowing players to spend their time with other players that share interests. In other words, the article is basically suggesting to separate the hardcore PvPers from the PvE players, while letting players jump between those groups if they so wish.

Very thoughtful reply - I'd got to the same conclusion TBH. Your additional refs and insight was v.helpful +1

 

[PacalB]

You rang ?

heheheh ... cute.

 

[Fromhell]

You know, WoW has both PvP and PvE servers. Playing in PvP servers doesn't offer any additional rewards, and on top of that players can level and gear up in PvE servers to then transfer to PvP ones.

Let´s talk WOW, or WOWclone SWTOR then.. or Tera.. or Rift.. or every other WoW clone with optional PvP seperation.
they still have:
- PvP gear which can only be acquired via PvP
- PvP rewards and achievements which only can be acquired via PvP battlezones
- PvP battlezones which can only be entered for... PvP
- entirely different leveling for PVP - valor, or PVP ranks or levels, again with different rewards you can´t get via PVE

(valid for both PVP and PVE servers, because the server setting only applies to open world, if characters on PVE server run around in invincible kiddie mode)

So, do we get different ways of progression through PVP in Elite?
What will be the PVP incentive? Why should I risk my cargo and ship in PvAll mode, if it´s useless and there is no risk vs. reward model? If PvAll offers nothing, I´ll switch to PvE mode and carebear my way through the universe like everyone else. Why bother?

In Star Citizen, for example, forum pools with close to 1K answers indicated that just 20% of the players wanted mostly PvE; the official pool with almost 8K players answering, which was able to reach players that don't participate in the forums, had over half of the respondents saying they prefer to only engage in PvE, with 75% (when adding solo and group players) saying that what they want to play the most is PvE.

http://robertsspaceindustries.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/StarCitizenSurvey.pdf

The biggest number is "What kind of combat do you prefer" with 53% for PVE. Prefer does not mean "I hate PVP" I can prefer PVE which I do, and still like the chance for PVP happening. I like epic scripted Star Wars style space battles or strategic missions like in X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter like everyone else. Still I want a realistic multiplayer universe sandbox.

Other question from the same poll:
"What part of the game are you looking forward the most?"
Yeah, says nothing - I went with "Single Player campaign" because I like to have another Wing Commander type storyline to play through, then continue in the online universe. Still don´t means I want a PvE/PvP serparation in the online universe.

Every concrete question on the forums, specifially on the PVE/PVP aspect showed up to 90% want PvAll to some degree.

http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/forum/showthread.php?14298-PvA-in-StarCitizen/page2

Only 10 % voted 0% PVP.

Like how every single big budget MMO launched in the west in the last few years didn't have non-consensual PvP? At most, they allowed the player to choose between PvP and PvE servers, with players in PvE servers completely free from non-consensual PvP.

so let´s regurgitate the same bland player base splitting please-everybody concept of the last 10 years F2P MMOs over and over again?

Like how EvE seems to be the only MMO that forces non-consensual PvP on all players that was able to retain more than 100K players outside Asia?

-10 years running
-Player numbers increasing every year
-Now half a million paying subs
-Never went F2P

Like how Diablo 3 not only launched without any way to PvP at all, but even a year after launch it still only has a meaningless arena with no consequences or rewards?

Metacritic USER RATING 3.8/10
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii

Now, the question: why is the World of Darkness MMO taking so long? Why does it currently only have a skeleton crew working on it? The World of Darkness MMO has been in pre-production for almost 7 years already, and is guaranteed to take at least two more years. Given the sheer lack of good MMOs with non-consensual PvP, if CCP really thought that game style would sell, it would make more sense to press ahead and release the game as soon as possible. Instead CCP went ahead with a FPS game that only has consensual PvP (as it doesn't have PvE the only reason to log is to play the PvP, and it plays more like a lobby-based shooter than a MMO anyway) while slowing down development of the WoD MMO.

That is a lot of misinformation in one paragraph.

WOD is coming, and CCP doesn´t do things half . It´s done when it´s done and up to the level of quality they want.
They focused on finishing EvE´s Dust 514 first because EvE is their biggest franchise - so what? Resources are not unlimted for CCP either.

EvE Fanfest 2012 WOD info
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch2vB1ZatPI

EvE Fanfest 2013 WOD info
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxC8vX2zAgY

I sincerely disagree with that post. Also, if non-consensual PvP was good for games,

you can disagree all day long, everyone knows the market is filled with "consensual everything" please everyone/Maximize population trash games which all take a nose dive a few months after release, going F2P or shutting down. Look at SWTOR, carebear themepark heaven. Crashed and burned with biggest IP ever. Pathetic.
Read some threads on mmorpg.com. People are sick of theme parks.
Either ED goes the way of the Dodo together with them or makes sure to be future proof.