[MUD-Dev] [PVP] Another essay on PVP

[Frank Crowell]

Here is another essay on PVP.  I thought I would post it here in
case I end up forgetting this later.  It is fairly well based on
Everquest, so it helps to have some EQ background:

  http://lumthemad.net/story.php?story=2105

There was also another article posted on LumtheMad a few days ago
about some discussions at an EQ fan faire concerning PVP.

maddog/madborg/madwizards, and also frank -- no relation to LumtheMad

<EdNote: Guess what is below>

--<cut>--
PVP IN EVERQUEST: SOME MODEST PROPOSALS
2001-06-19 11:36:00 [Filed by Lum the Mad]

It's rare that I post a reader submission, but I've recently gotten
not one, but two excellent proposals for how to fixx0r the r0xx0ring
in EQ. Since Verant is in the midst of rethinking PvP anyway (as
seen by the Sullon Zek experiment ) it's a good time to look at how
to possibly make EQ's PvP game less painful and more attractive to
experienced players. With that, I bring you essays by Paradox
Equation and Isuldir. The first, by PE, looks more at the finer
details of how to make EQ's game system more PvP friendly, while
Isuldir's piece takes a longer view at how to add a strategic
element to EQ's current guild and faction system.

---

This is going to be long. You may as well go grab something to
drink.

This, is about PVP. Specifically, PVP in Everquest. If you are not
interested in some of the theories behind PVP, I won't blame you for
not giving a shit. If someone posted a rant on here about the
wonderful dynamics of soloing in AC, I probably wouldn't care
either. This deals with some of the real BASIC theories behind the
concept of Player Versus Player conflict, battle, and
friction. Enjoy.

Ultima Online... Having gone through several stages of failed PVP
and moderately successful pvp, and having failed specifically in
dealing with mass killings, it has taken the coward's way out and
nixed the issue through UOR. Easy, certainly, but dealing with
unrestricted PVP in any online environment not specifically suited
for it is a very hard task. I can understand how they could have
gotten sick of the issue.

AC. It is ok, truly good for some, truly bad for many. In between,
for me.

Everquest. Started out bad, got a little better, got a little
worse. From what I can see, though, Everquest, out of each of the
games out now, has the most potential to be an excellent PVP game.

Why is this? Everquest, as an engine, can be changed sufficiently to
actually become a real light hearted and enjoyable game based on the
most direct form of competition; player combat. Its dynamics and
tricks and quirks and very very hard-to-peel layers of strategic
combat have a hard time thriving in such an environment. But they
do.

Many players of Everquest, and it seems, the developers of
Everquest, seem to find the whole theory behind the game
set-in-stone. The Vision, many would call it, is as firmly stamped
into the minds of many of the players as it is the Developers. And
the way the Vision works, it doesn't allow much room for PVP.

Now first, I challenge myself to two things. First, I challenge
myself to state changes that could be made to the Everquest engine
that would further accomodate PVP. Second, I challenge myself to
further state how it would all work in an environment of practically
unrestricted PVP. No level restrictions. At the most, religion/race
restrictions.

I shall begin.

The way EQ PVP works now is based entirely on a few practically
unchangeable solid concepts:

Level: 

  There is no way anyone could kill someone 10 levels higher than
  themselves without incredible situational and class based
  advantages over the higher level.

Class: 

  A necromancer *will* kill a rogue, and a Druid will kill a monk,
  nearly always, unless Level or Situation accomodates that rogue or
  that monk. This is one of the dilemmas that would never truly be
  fixable and would be rather a challenge to correct to a good
  degree. More content would have to be added to make REAL pvp class
  balance a reality.

Situation:

  In some fights, having the first hit can change the entire course
  of the confrontation... Attacking unseen from a hill may lead to
  an easy kill. Or, attacking a target that is currently fighting a
  creature or meditating will lead to a very short fight. If your
  target is outnumbered, unless they're higher level or a good
  class, you have a considerably higher chance of winning.

Knowledge: 

  This is a player's personal skill with the dynamics of the
  game. Knowledge can easily dictate a fight's outcome. Someone who
  doesn't only know more about the game, but also knows more about
  PVP in the game, will win over another person who doesn't. Proper
  knowledge can manipulate situation to a player's advantage as
  well. Ideally, combat should be most based on knowledge and
  situation.

So, the first changes will be made based on the BAD things that the
combatants don't want, and the good that combatants want more of or
would rather keep the same.

THE CAUSE FOR CHANGE

DISLIKES:

Very few who want to fight player versus player want to...

  Wait for an inordinate amount of time. For anything. Especially in
  a game.

  Deal with excessive corpse recovery.

  Bite the bullet upon death and have to deal with setbacks in the
  normal routine of conquest and battle.

  Spend a lot of time killing monsters.

  Be forced to rely on others in order to be successful in
  PVP. Maybe in monster killing, NECESSARY grouping is recognized as
  something that drives the game. Often, though, a PVPer would
  rather not be limited in their fun by the availability of
  others. I may venture to say that many who center on PVM probably
  feel the same. Teamwork is good. But punishing lack of teamwork is
  especially bad in PVP. This means that more specialized classes
  like Wizards, warriors, and enchanters have to have methods of
  effectively going one on one without the help of someone else.

  Deal with others who have the time to acquire excessively powerful
  loot.

  Die to wild class imbalances added so players can defeat hard epic
  encounters.

  Die to someone else because they are wildly higher level than
  themselves.

  Die without a glimmer of a chance of succeeding when fighting
  back.

  Have their class radically changed or have their power decreased
  in ways that could seriously overturn their tactics.

  Lose to a tactic that has no counter

THE GOOD:

Things EQ already does well, and sometimes, could do better. Most
combatants like, enjoy, or want...

  Long fights, giving plenty of opportunity for thought, tactical
  manuevering, and more chances to exercise ability, skill,
  judgement, and personal knowledge. The current state of EQ pvp is
  good for this.

  Multiple options of approach and tactics to employ in counter to
  tricks pulled by opponents. This field is slightly lacking in
  Everquest, and would be rather hard to improve without adding new
  content. This isn't necessarily the most important thing on the
  list, but if there were ways to add complexity to battles,
  implementing them would be a good idea for any PVP environment.

  Massive battles. Nuff' said.

  Territorial significance. I personally take vast enjoyment out of
  striking popular leveling areas of opposing teams and forcing them
  to fight for the right to continue leveling there.

  A lot of the hardcore PVPers really enjoy being outnumbered or
  being put at a severe disadvantage, but still having just enough
  chance of victory to pull the proper tricks and strategies and
  come out on top with all the glory. Some, like myself, can't stand
  a "Fair" fight and would rather be at disadvantages in most
  fights.

  The chance to pull a "Whoa," on someone else and come up with more
  clever tactics. As it is, most classes are predictable in their
  available strategies and tactics, and can be matched spell for
  spell or blow for blow by someone who has the dynamics
  mastered. This is another hard thing to improve: New stuff would
  have to be thrown into the soup for this. Despite what many think,
  PVP in EQ is a lot more than just hitting 'a', but it could still
  use some added complexity. UO currently rules the field with
  combat complexity. At least, it did before some noted changes. I
  won't get into that, though.

PROTOCOL FOR MAKING CHANGES

Balancing the classes isn't the most necessary job for POSSIBLE
unrestricted combat, but for truly intriguing unrestricted combat,
you need to make sure each class can match each other class in some
way or another, based on player skill.

To do this though, Verant often applies the scalpel. Removing,
debuffing, or reducing effectiveness of certain abilities works very
well for balancing PVM interaction. This is not so for PVP. Good PVP
balancing means, instead of removing the overly powerful spell that
0wnz v3r1ly, you add a counter to it. This kills two birds with one
stone: You have more complexity and more balance if the changes pull
through properly. Some may agree with me when I say that this is all
very basic stuff, but someone has to come out and say it all
eventually.

THE ACTUAL CHANGES

Now for the nitty gritty. I will list the changes, and I will list
the reasons, the positive outcomes, and the possible negative
outcomes, for each. Even if only half of these were implemented, any
PVP server would become better. If specific ones were implemented,
unrestricted PVP in everquest would be excellent.

MAJOR CHANGES. These changes would make pvp more enjoyable.

ISSUE NUMBER ONE. DOWNTIME. Downtime must be, at a minimum, cut in
half. The longest anyone should have to sit, alone, is five
minutes. I'm thinking a sort of "Super" meditation could be achieved
when sitting still and unaffected by any debuffs or DOTs. During
this state, HP regen and mana regen would triple.

CHANGES: 

  1. Allow players to go into a "Super Regeneration" state after
  several seconds of uninterrupted concentration (With no debuffs or
  DOTs active.) This will triple mana regeneration, and health
  regeneration.

  2. Allow the Healing skill to heal beyond fifty percent for all
  levels, and increase the HP each bandage heals.  WHY: Downtime is
  very bad for PVP. It reduces enjoyment by a very large degree.
  POSITIVE: Players would spend more time actually playing the game,
  actually having fun. Fights would be more common and battle would
  be more intense.  NEGATIVE: Possible "Get up and fight right after
  death" phenomena, and similar problems. The required state of
  concentration with no debuffs or DOTs, would prevent players from
  sitting down and healing themselves halfway to full in the middle
  of a fight, though. Further restrictions would possibly need to be
  applied.

  3. LEVELING. Say this were for an EQ PVP server, we wouldn't want
  our players to spend more time leveling than actually pvping. As
  it is, this is what it is like, and it will be even more so once
  pvp becomes unrestricted. The level 60s will rule the battlefield,
  then, and that means high levels will be the only ones who will
  actually truly enjoy the server. That means Average Joe who wants
  to pvp a little bit will find himself obsolete without being at
  least level fifty, preferably with Kunark and in the mid
  fifties. Everyone else will be too busy dying. Hey, it happened on
  Darktide. It'd be much much worse in Everquest.

CHANGES:

  1. DOUBLE experience given by ALL mobs on death. If a 25% increase
  in EXP gained can be applied to dungeons by Verant, then they
  could apply a 100% increase in exp gained in ALL zones on a pvp
  server.

  2. HALVE all numerical values associated with mobs
  statistics. HALF hitpoints, half mana, half attack/damage done,
  half damage done by spells, half magic resist, half
  EVERYTHING. Make the mobs easy to kill. To do this, all mobs could
  cast a spell on themselves immediately upon spawning that would do
  this to their statistics. WHY: No pvper likes to be forced to
  devote unnecessary amounts of time to leveling in any game to be
  able to compete. This would essentially make reaching the cap much
  faster and easier, and would leave your casual player who enjoys
  combat to, well, actually pvp, instead of level indefinitely.

    POSITIVE: Everyone would be motivated to actually engage in
    player combat instead of level with the occaisional
    conflict. Currently, a problem seen on PVP servers are people
    who do nothing but level and never help their teams, simply
    because they feel that they'd only be of any use at very high
    levels. If the leveling process were sped up, this would no
    longer be a problem.

    NEGATIVE: Literally two-week level 40's and 50's. Not that this
    is entirely a bad thing, but this does mean that the server is
    devoted to PVP, obviously, and not to killing monsters. If a
    player played to b3 l33t h1gh l3v3l on a pvp server with this
    ruleset, he would find him/herself quickly disillusioned and
    disgruntled.

  3. ph4t l3wts. Everyone knows that half the reason most people
  play Everquest is to acquire the ultimate in equipment. Well, I
  have an alternative idea for this on a PVP server.

    Changes:

      1. Remove all items designed for level 45's and up from mobs.

      2. Put all of these items on special vendors in guild halls,
      based on class. For sale. At extremely high prices.

      3. Replace all high level mob lewt that would normally consist
      of those incredible items, with high amounts of platinum
      and/or special tokens that could be sold to vendors for high
      amounts of platinum

      4. Watch the players fight to the death for money.

  WHY: Camping, like leveling, takes a lot of emphasis away from
  PVP. This would totally eliminate that.

    POSITIVE: This would eliminate camping, and would still make
    killing those high level monsters necessary. This would prevent
    high level territory from becoming unimportant. People would
    fight over high-EXP and high-money yielding creatures in those
    big ass hard zones. Most of those excessively hard things would
    become platinum mines for the insane equipment going for
    thousands of platinum per piece in the venders in
    guildhalls. This would also make money very important.

    NEGATIVE: Really serious twinking problem. Possible restrictions
    may need to be applied to prevent really bad twinking.

Those three changes would make any PVP server a heaven that I would
personally love. The following changes are less important.

The most necessary change for unrestricted PvP: SHAVING OFF THE
LEVEL BARRIER. Impractical but necessary for very good PVP. Probably
the hardest change to devise.

Currently a lower level will almost always die to a higher
level. This would have to be changed for unrestricted PVP in EQ.

Changes:

  1. Make lower levels stronger (A level ten on this pvp server
  should be twice as strong as a level ten on a normal server.)

  2. Make higher levels weaker. (A level sixty on this special pvp
  server would have to be half as strong as a level sixty on a
  normal server.)

   3. Change the skill curve, HP curve, and mana curve for all
   classes. A level thirty here should be as strong as a level
   thirty on a normal PVP server, and thats where they should get
   more powerful very slowly.

WHY: In unrestricted PVP, without some sort of measures taken to
prevent this, NO one will have the chance to get higher level due to
being killed by anyone higher all the time without a chance to fight
back.
 
  Positive: This would make the perfect pvp server.

  Negative: This would be excrutiatingly hard to do. Every minute
  detail of mob strength and the small quirks of the leveling curve
  would have to be changed. Unless some sort algorithm could be
  designed to handle all of the changes automatically. I'm not a
  coder, so I can't really go into the very specifics of HOW I would
  make such sweeping changes to the system.

Final specifics.

  Corpse recovery. 

    Players, upon death, could be given a small box allowing them to
    choose to resurrect with all of their equipment equipped
    already, for a fee depending on their level automatically
    deducted from their bank account. Five gold for someone below
    level ten, a platinum for someone around level fifteen, ten
    platinum for someone over/around the twenties.

  Additions. 

    Each class should be given a small new special ability. Not
    necessarily a new spell or weapon, but new vegetables to throw
    into the PVP soup. Wizards could be given a "Mend" skill that
    would apply to mana. Rogues could have a new poison or a
    momentary speed increase that would drain stamina (like a dash.)
    Enchanters could have a "Hypnotize" ability that would work for
    thirty seconds to totally charm anyone, with a 50% chance of
    resisting. Necromancers could be given an insta-charm-dead
    skill, a "Dark Command" or something like that. Essentially,
    small abilities equivalent to the Harm Touch and Lay Hands from
    paladins and ShadowKnights, except for every class. Even for the
    ones who already have something similar (Mend, for instance).

  Balance. 

    Each class, over time, should be balanced to be able to equally
    lose and win against other classes. This is another hard thing
    to do, and isn't totally necessary for fun pvp, but it should be
    included on the list as well.

WHY WRITE THIS?

Well, it only took me an hour and a half, and really, I'd like to
finally see a game exercise its full potential. Call me an idealist,
but I think that if a few of these changes were implemented, a PVP
server in EQ could truly be a fun thing. I only want to be heard,
and my opinion to be seen. Maybe someone up there in Verant will
take a look at this and go "Hmm, he has a point there," about at
least a couple of the issues I've addressed. Maybe it'll actually
change something. I can see servers operating at maximum capacity
with these rules. I can see people enjoying it.

Maybe. Then again, maybe not.

If you want to discuss this, or if I missed some things, post on the
discussion thread (which I'll be reading, of course,) or e-mail me
here. Thanks.

-- Paradox Equation, long time battle monger and strategist,
www.lotd.org
www.pkghost.com

-=-

Player vs. Player interactions (PvP) are often considered the Holy
Grail of online roleplaying games. The theory is that the most
effective and interesting antagonists are often - if not always -
the players themselves. In an ideal game, rather than the players
controlling characters who are united against some common opponent,
and that opponent is controlled by the computer running the game,
the players work against one another, uniting only on a smaller
scale. The challenges they overcome are not pre-constructed
algorithms, but the actual machinations and schemes of real people,
who have no more power, influence, or control over the game world
than they themselves do. Players would, in participating in the game
world, form all the alliances, empires, conspiracies, and plots that
drive the dramatic plot. Rather than a simple extension of the
traditional single-player 'roleplaying game' (a term used here in
the understood sense, rather than the literal sense) where the
player overcomes static challenges without ever truly existing in
the game world, this ideal of PvP creates a new paradigm of
roleplaying - one in which it is possible to view every player as
actually existing in the game world, defining it, and creating it in
the way a real world is created - consensually by the perceptions,
actions, and interactions of all the participants.

The reality of PvP interaction is, however, far short of this
ideal. In three major titles on the market, PvP is at best a
pointless Nietzchean struggle for supremacy, and at worst an outlet
for immature and antisocial aggressions that have no real dramatic
content. In Ultima Online, the PvP experience was, for the vast
majority of the players, so unpleasant that many opted out of the
game, forcing Origin to compromise their original vision of the game
to make PvP less and less attractive to the aforementioned immature
and antisocial people. In Everquest, the design of the game - with a
strong emphasis on equipment and invested time - meant that the only
real reward that could be offered for PvP interactions was an
unreasonable one. Players of Everquest were not willing to risk the
equipment and time they'd invested in their characters, and with
greater and greater restrictions on the nature of the 'looting'
system on the EQ PvP servers, it soon became clear that there was,
in fact, no point to having a PvP system at all. Nothing could be
gained by it, and so the struggles inevitably became futile. In
Asheron's Call, perhaps the best of the PvP implementations, real
conflicts and alliances emerged, real factionalization occurred, and
the events on the PvP server during the period when the game's
primary antagonist, Bael'zharon, was present in the game world, bear
out that something special is taking place in AC. Unfortunately,
even AC remains crippled by a lack of real ability to make gains, to
accomplish anything lasting through PvP. Thus, as with UO and EQ,
Asheron's Call's PvP server attracts those wishing to vent
antisocial urges, rather than those wishing to create large-scale
player driven plots.

Given all these problems extant with PvP systems as they currently
exist, the inevitable question arises: Why PvP? Why do game
companies continue to bother with this mode of interaction, if it
never seems to function as intended, and often drives players away
from a game? It is clear that this is a focus of modern game design
- one potential competitor to these 'big three,' Shadowbane,
considers its PvP interaction a primary selling point. Dark Ages of
Camelot, another game on the horizon, has a complicated team-based
PvP system, which one can only hope is more functional than the EQ
team PvP system. In any case, PvP seems to have some profound
attraction to game developers.

To understand this attraction, let us make a distinction between two
kinds of games (of any sort, tabletop RPG, computer RPG, or
multiplayer online RPG). There are Simulation games and Dramatic
games. The latter type of game is, in its tabletop form, generally
typified by a carefully crafted story arc, which the gamemaster
gradually reveals to the players. The players are actors in a play
written by the gamemaster, and while their actions have some
influence over the story, there is a sense that they are still
participants, not co-authors. This often makes for very exciting
roleplaying, in the small and intimate environment of a tabletop
game. It has been tried with some success in Asheron's Call, with
its monthly events, and with less success in Everquest, with its new
content expanding and developing the world's history - although the
real measure of EQ's success should be in its quests , given that
they provide the game with its title. In this respect most players
consider EQ a failure, as its quests are typically the least
interesting and least rewarding part of the game (with a few major
exceptions, such as the Epic Weapon quests). Dramatic games are
universally similar in one way: they require constant gamemaster
attention to function. When there is no gamemaster (or gamemaster
surrogate, in the case of the EQ quests) the story cannot
progress. The less gamemaster attention, the less interesting the
dramatic storyline. How many people would enjoy a tabletop game in
which they were sharing the gamemaster's time with a thousand other
players? Yet this is precisely what the major, existing games
propose to do, to make their games more exciting - more like,
perhaps, the tabletop games they remember enjoying so much.

Simulation games, on the other hand, take the approach that a great
fantasy world (or any other type of RPG world, actually) with
dramatic conflicts and exciting interactions comes out of the people
who populate it. Rather than (for instance) seeing Sauron, Saruman,
and Gandalf as gamemaster mouthpieces from whom the plot is handed
down, simulation proponents see these characters as actors in a
realized world, the same as Frodo, Samwise, Aragorn, and the rest of
the Fellowship. The plots happen, not because they have been
ordained, but because they are directed by people. The chief
argument for simulation games is the events of the real world,
summed in the aphorism 'Truth is stranger than fiction,' and the
chief design goal of the simulation game is to provide a coherent
world in which the players can act however they see fit.

Simulation games can, and do, work. I have written and produced four
large-scale weekend-long live action games, in which 30 to 50 people
take on roles I have written, in a setting in which they are the
protagonists and antagonists. The threat to the world comes from
players. The salvation of the world comes from players. The
middlemen whose loyalties are questionable are all players. Without
exception, every single one of these games has been a tremendous
success - in the sense that the players felt they were working
against one another, not against the author or the gamemasters, and
working with each other, not with the author or the gamemasters. The
tension and drama of this kind of game exceeds anything one person
could reasonably create alone, through a Dramatic style of game.

Before I continue to cast these things in terms of black and white,
I will argue that the best game combines elements of both these
approaches, and most multiplayer online roleplaying games attempt to
do so, as well. For instance, in the live-action games I describe,
there would be no reason for conflict were it not for the characters
I wrote - the demented cultists, the inquisitive students, the
mysterious powers behind the scenes - and to the extent that I wrote
those characters, the game was a Dramatic game. On the other hand,
once the preconditions for conflict were in place, the actual story
played out according to the interests, actions, and reactions of the
players themselves. The game became 'hands-off' for the author at
that point. When the demented cultists failed to come to an accord
with the immortal sorcerer who posed as a wealthy millionaire, when
the students learned terrible secrets from ancient tomes that
allowed them to forge alliances with the mysterious spirit wandering
the school grounds, and when the world nearly ended and was saved at
the last minute in a kind of Pyrrhic victory, none of this was
planned, none of it was scripted, and none of it was anything but a
Simulation game.

The simple truth of the appeal of Simulation style games is that the
best drama comes from real motivations and emotions - and no author
can match that level of involvement. Defeating the Evil Overlord is
a great accomplishment, but how much greater is it when you know it
was not a result of a gamemaster's planning, but rather your own
efforts overcoming those of another player with as much vested
interest in victory as you have? When another player is your enemy,
the outcome is never certain.

Which leads inevitably back to PvP, and the sad fact that no PvP
system in action to date has managed to capture this sense of
terrible conflict. At best, PvP provides for action on a local scale
- one battle, one zone, one hilltop, one town (Asheron's Call,
Everquest). At worst, it becomes random, pointless violence, without
even a short-term goal to motivate it (Ultima Online).

How do we make PvP work for the game, rather than against it?

My contention is simple: To construct a worthwhile PvP system, you
need conflict which has meaningful, lasting results, results that
strike not at the players' characters, but at their resources . I
argue that the first part is necessary to lift PvP out of the realm
of 'mindless violence', and the second part is necessary to prevent
the loss of the active roleplayers to the perception that they could
become a victim, rather than an actor.

Presentation

I am going to frame my conception of a functional PvP system in
terms of Everquest, as it is the game with which I am most
familiar. It also presents a certain challenge - the static EQ world
is particularly unsuited to dramatic PvP conflict. For those not
familiar with EQ, I hope that these examples remain intelligible.

Every NPC in EQ is associated with a 'faction'. This faction
determines their reactions to the players - hostility, indifference,
or friendship - and is a static value. All of the dark elf guards
belong to one faction, all the druids of Surefall Glade belong to
one faction, all the farmers in the Karanas belong to one
faction. Players can increase their standing with a given faction
through killing the faction's enemies and completing tasks for the
faction. They can decrease their standing through killing members of
the faction, killing their friends, or accomplishing tasks for the
faction's enemies. What is not generally considered, however, is
that faction is a powerful tool for meaningful PvP.

Suppose that a group of PC dark elves decides, in a PvP environment,
to attack the human town of Freeport - a reasonable supposition, as
it happens relatively often on EQ's PvP servers. They mount a large
force, advance to the town, and possibly meet defenders. They
overcome those defenders, make their way to the city gates, and
overwhelm the NPC guards, whose faction information is such that
they attempt to kill dark elves. Once the gate is secure, the town
taken, and the dark elves have won, what happens?

The guards reappear ('respawn') with the same orders: kill dark
elves. No matter how many times those guards are overcome, the
supply will not diminish. The dark elves have lost before they begin
- because they cannot take the town, they cannot truly declare
victory. Instead they are forced to acclaim themselves victors if
they keep control of the town for a short period of time - after
which they leave, and the town reverts to human control.

Now imagine how this scenario should play out in a realistic
world. The dark elves overcome the guards, execute the rulers of the
city, and declare it a holding of their nation. Freeport becomes a
new dark elf city, and humans are looked down upon - if not
executed. High elves and wood elves, the traditional enemies of the
dark elves, are slain on sight. The new guards hired by the ruling
dark elves share their masters' faction views, and Freeport becomes
a haven for those aligned with evil.

Let's deconstruct what's actually happening in that latter scenario:
the dark elves attack, and overcome human and computer
defenders. When they've overcome enough of them, they make their way
to some center of power, some seat of government, and take action to
make themselves the new rulers of the city. While they cannot
instantly sway the hearts and minds of the newly-conquered, they can
take the important step of hiring new guards to replace the old -
guards who are loyal to their empire, rather than to the city of
Freeport. Those guards become the enforcement, in game terms, of the
new regime, in the same sense that they were the enforcers of the
anti-dark-elf regime that existed previously.

In other words, the major and significant game system change that
occurs is an alteration of the faction of the guards.

Before continuing, let's ask what sorts of objections to this kind
of scheme might arise - and, in fact, the objections that arise from
any mandatory PvP scheme. The first, and most important, is: "I
don't want to participate in PvP. Why should I be penalized for the
success or failure of others?" The second is: "What if someone
'wins', conquering the whole world and leaving no opportunity for
revolution and the retaking of territory?" The third is: "What about
the people who want only to hide in the wilderness and kill
passer-by?"

Also, as a basic premise, let's assume that on your character's
death due to PvP, you suffer no loss of equipment, money, or
experience. You are simply returned to your bind point, naked, and
must recover your corpse, as current EQ death stands (less the
experience loss). You can kill, or be killed, without any
consequence to your character. I will argue that a game system can
offer much more significant consequences to PvP, without the
undesirable sacrifices of your time and effort inherent in any
looting system.

Objection One: Non-Participation

When you create a human character in Freeport, and select as your
deity one of the 'established' temples there, you are assumed from
that point to have a certain amount of loyalty to the city of
Freeport. You can, for the most part, come and go as you please, and
the merchants and commoners in the city are generally friendly to
you. (I am simplifying the faction situation in Freeport
considerably for this example; I am well aware that it is more
complex than that.) That assumption of loyalty would then make you
subject to the vagaries of any PvP system which could alter the
basic rules of Freeport's factions. Uninvolved, you might find
yourself hunted, and hated, in the city where you grew up.

The obvious solution, then, is to not assume that loyalty. Rather
than making one's loyalty to a given faction or set of factions
automatic, as part of the character creation process, make this
loyalty something which must be actively given. One is not a
'Defender of Freeport' until one chooses to be.

Let us suppose, in the center of Freeport, there is a stone. This
stone, when activated, gives the player a dialogue box: "Do you wish
to swear allegiance to this city?" If the player agrees, they are
then flagged 'Defender of Freeport' - and their factions are altered
to reflect this change. This system could be further refined to
allow for variations in individual factions - for instance, if the
player is loved by the enemies of Freeport, and hated by its
defenders, through their own actions, this
adjustment-through-allegiance might only make them tolerable to the
defenders - and might make a character who had demonstrated loyalty
through deeds loved. If we imagine faction as a 5 point scale:

  Loathed - Disliked - Indifferent - Liked - Loved

then allegiance to Freeport might carry with it the alteration: '+2
to Defenders, -2 to Enemies, +1 to Allies, -1 to Enemies'
Allies'. Expressed in explicit EQ terms, this might be: "+2 to
Freeport Militia, Mithaniel Marr, Freeport Citizens; -2 to all
Neriak factions; +1 to Qeynos factions, Faydwer factions; -1 to
Troll and Ogre factions." If I began as 'disliked' to the Militia
(not a hard thing to accomplish, given how hostile that faction is)
I might become 'liked'; if I began as 'loved' to the Neriak Dragoons
(which seems unlikely), I might drop to 'Indifferent'.

More importantly, I would now carry the 'I participate in PvP' flag,
which would single me out for special attentions by the city's
defenders - whether those be friendly or hostile - and the defenders
of all the other cities.

The advantages of being a defender could be made very concrete -
cheaper prices on goods within the city, access to special
merchants, and possibly the opportunity to govern the city (which
I'll get to in a few moments). The advantages of being unaligned
would be immunity from the PvP conflicts and their effects on the
city's faction.

Now we can return to our original deconstruction: what happens when
the dark elves take Freeport? Presumably, they reach the stone in
the center. Then, after a period of time in which only members of
their group, the Defenders of Neriak, have access to the stone,
there is a 'conversion'. New faction rules are sent out to the
guards. To any participant in the PvP game, these guards now exhibit
the inclinations of the Neriak factions, and respond
accordingly. All the benefits once available to the Defenders of
Freeport are now available to the dark elf conquerors - and Freeport
just became a very inimical place for the former Defenders, who will
be slain by the guards if they attempt to enter.

Objection Two: Total Victory

This objection has led designers of the current crop of games to
create artificial limitations on 'how far' PvP can go - a hard,
unrealistic limitation on just how much success is permitted any one
group. This is true, at least, for Dark Ages of Camelot, where the
'homelands' of the three competing groups will be immune from
permanent conquest. This kind of limitation brings the game back to
square one, though - PvP can never be genuinely meaningful if actual
victory is not possible.

Let us again ask what would realistically happen if Freeport were to
be conquered by dark elves. A military force takes the city, storms
its seats of governance, and asserts control. A new government is
appointed by the officials in Neriak, and empowered to run the city
in their stead. This makes Freeport a colony of Neriak only insofar
as the new government is loyal to Neriak . What happens if they get
ambitions of their own? They do, after all, rule one of the largest
cities in the world. What if they decide Freeport's best interests
lie in making peace with the dwarves and halflings?

This brings us to the next requirement: the factions of a city must
be ruled by the players, not the code . That means exactly what it
implies: a player-run system of government, which decides through
its actions what relationships the city will have with other cities.

How the government is chosen is irrelevant, although I will present
a few options. Freeport is a mercantile city, and the rich likely
rule; membership in the government might thus be chosen through
money. He who contributes the most platinum, rules the city. Oggok,
the ogre city, is a violent place, and the leaders might be chosen
through battle. Neriak is a city of machinations and power
struggles, and an election thus seems appropriate. Or, for
simplicity, all rulers could be chosen through election - or any of
the other methods, or any method at all. In the end, what matters is
that there is a player, or a small group of players, who are
empowered to represent their city.

Imagine an embassy from Freeport to Neriak, to establish a peace
treaty. The members of the two governments meet, and sign the treaty
(which could be handled, in game system terms, through a
dialogue-box interface). The factions of both cities are
subsequently altered to reflect this new peace - now dark elves who
are participants in the PvP system can move freely in Freeport, and
humans can do likewise in Neriak. Perhaps there will not be actual
good will per se, but on our faction scale above, we might be moving
+1 for each faction - rather than being loathed by the dark elves, a
human might now be only disliked. Conversely, imagine an ambassador
from the elven city of Felwithe coming to Freeport to protest this
decision. He declares that unless the treaty is rejected, his people
will no longer welcome those of Freeport in their lands. Freeport
responds with a declaration of hostility; now elves are no longer
welcome in Freeport, dropping by -1 or -2 on the faction scale.

In this way, the factions become representative of the
player-controlled interactions at the governance level. Lest you
think this would lead to sudden peace among all cities, remember
that there is no reason currently for the dark elves to attack
Freeport on the existing EQ PvP servers - and yet they do it
anyway. Hostility and alliance come naturally with the PvP
environment, and player controlled factions will only amplify this
effect, not suppress it.

We can add detail to this as much as we like; trade treaties,
alliances, declarations of war, declarations of mutual assistance,
diplomatic incidents where a dark elf is slain by humans deep in the
wilderness. For the purposes of this example, the current level of
detail is enough to illustrate the next point.

What happens when the dark elves take Freeport?

They become the government of Freeport . Those conquerors are now
the rulers of an independent city. When this new government is
created, it shares all the treaties and factions of the current
rulers of Neriak. After that point, however, they are
independent. If these new rulers choose to make alliances with
Qeynos and declare war on the trolls, they can do so - and if
Neriak's government dislikes this decision, they will have to
enforce their wishes militarily. In the meantime, though, doubtless
scores of dark elves are moving to Freeport, switching allegiances
to the new city, and through their actions becoming the new
Defenders of Freeport.

What about the old government? Perhaps the former Defenders can
retake the city, restore their rule. To this end, they retain their
'Old Freeport' defender status. If they are able to retake the city,
the factions would be restored to their original state. After a
period of time, though (for this example, let's say a week) they
lose this status, and become unaligned. Perhaps they can join with
the elves, or with the halflings, or Qeynos, and from there stage an
assault which will give them control once more, as a colony of that
empire. Their original glory, though, is lost. Or, perhaps, they
would make their way to the new Freeport, and there swear allegiance
to the new government, choosing to continue to serve their city even
under foreign masters.

>From this set of examples it becomes clear that no one city could
'win' by controlling the rest of the world. No matter how many
cities are taken, each one remains independent, and it is only
through actual player interactions that an 'empire' can be built. If
you, the ruler of Neriak, have ten lieutenants you can trust, and
you can install them as rulers of ten cities (a probably impossible
task) you may have made the world safe for dark elves - but only for
so long as your lieutenants remain loyal to you, and to each
other. Old 'teams' are replaced with new, and the new 'teams' are
the same as the old, except for the people - which is exactly as
realism tells us it should be. For those displaced PvP participants
who have fled their cities in defeat, there is the option of joining
one of your conquered cities - or perhaps operating independently in
the wilderness, acting as bandits and renegades, a resistance
building its forces for a reconquest.

Which leads neatly into the next point.

Objection Three: The Banditry Problem

In addition to the city-based teams, there should be the opportunity
to participate in PvP as a part of the 'no-team team', which is
disliked by all, which has no alliances, no diplomacy. In any
ancient empire, there are always discontents and the lawless at the
edges of civilization - or even in its heart. In Gaul, in the Basque
region of Spain, throughout the Levant, the Roman Empire faced
resistance from everywhere. Its rule was never certain, and these
bandits preyed on the Romans and became powerful. When Rome fell, it
was not due to natural forces - it was pressure from these very
malcontents, who carved the Empire up among themselves in the wake
of the collapse.

In this system, a player could set themselves as a PvP participant,
but not choose a city to defend. This could also happen if the
player's city is conquered - they're left to wander the wilderness,
either joining another city or joining the bandits. These bandits
would operate in places like High Keep and the Karanas, and could
strike at any member of any city's defenders.

The check upon this (apparently attractive, given UO as an example)
option would be simply that, in addition to receiving none of the
benefits of membership in a city, the bandits would receive all the
penalties of being every city's enemy. Denied access to the
resources and safety of the cities, they would never have the
security of a safe place to rest, resupply, and sell their loot. For
the truly antisocial killers, the people who claim that, when
killing new players in Ultima Online, they're 'roleplaying a
sociopath' - they would get their wish. The true sociopath would be
an outcast, and that's exactly what these bandits would
be. Inevitably, I believe these bandits would seek to seize a city
for themselves, and the displaced former rulers would themselves
become the new bandits.

A modification to this system would be necessary to allow a renegade
to 'come into the fold' and join a city - perhaps the opportunity to
set a 'truce flag' which would allow them limited entry to a city
for the purposes of conversation and allegiance-forming, although
not for selling, buying, or making use of the city's resources. This
same 'truce flag' system would also permit the previously mentioned
ambassadors from Freeport to visit Neriak for peace talks.

Summary and Conclusion

In Everquest terms, I'm really proposing a kind of 'super-faction.'
When active - and it would only be active by any given player's
choice - it would supercede the normal faction system for the cities
and the guards and citizens of the cities. Every NPC associated with
a city would be given a new parameter: the 'super-faction'
information, which would tell it how to interact with players who
also had this parameter set. By imposing a super-faction across the
world, PvP could be made to have real, lasting effects, while
leaving those who wished only to 'play the game in peace' - a common
sentiment on AC's PvP server - totally unaffected by the wars.

It seems to me, though, that given the opportunity to participate in
something of this scale, few players would want to be left out. The
added benefits of participation - whatever those are defined as,
although I suggest they be aimed at merchant pricing - would
convince all but the most dedicated of the powergamers to join.

The result? A system which creates a worldwide conflict, which gives
players reasons to participate, which has meaningful and lasting
effects, and which does not affect the characters themselves, but
rather their access to resources.

And, I hope I've argued, a Simulation-based plot which no
gamemaster-coded static quest could ever approach.

 

Addendum: Mechanics of the Attack

Lord Dazin Drakenblade, level 59 Necromancer and ruler of Neriak,
decides it is time to take Freeport, and wipe out the human plague
to the south. He gathers his lieutenants, and announces that the
attack will happen in two days' time, on the weekend (so that the
maximum numbers of dark elves can participate). They all begin their
preparations; Dazin then opens his 'City Leader' control window, and
sees that he has 2 'war declarations' left in his supply for this
month. He uses one of them now, knowing that he has to declare war
at least 24 hours before the actual conflict can begin - the
declaration sets the Freeport Control Stone to 'vulnerable', meaning
it will respond to his team's efforts. This gives the Freeport
Defenders a chance to prepare for the attack. In the past, Dazin has
sent declarations of war and not attacked, and he hopes the Freeport
Defenders will think this is another feint, and not take it
seriously. His declaration sends out a message automatically to all
the Neriak Defenders: "We are attacking Freeport in 2 days."

Nyktos Spindleshriek, level 60 Cleric of Innoruk, sees the message
flashing on his interface, and reads the announcement. He then sends
a /tell to Dazin: "Am I leading this attack, as you promised?" Dazin
replies a few minutes later: "I was hoping you would, if you're
going to be free." Nyktos grins and tells his group he has to go
/afk for a few minutes, and then starts planning strategy with Dazin
and the other lieutenants over the /govern channel.

Lord Valryn Darkhammer, level 60 Warrior and ruler of Freeport, is
on a Hate raid when he sees a 'message' icon appear on his
interface. He checks with the pulling team and finds out he has a
few minutes to spare, so he opens it and reads it. Probably another
peace offering from the Gnomes , he thinks; he's been trying to get
the elves to go to war with them for a month, and it hasn't been
working. In his 'City Leader' control window, he sees that Freeport
will be at war with Neriak in 2 days. Great, another false
alarm. Well, I guess I'd better tell people back home . He announces
the war over the /govern channel, and also sends a /tell to
Invidious Putrifex, a member of the Neriak Defenders, and a traitor
for the Freeport cause. "Is this for real?" The answer comes back
immediately. "Looks like it; Dazin just sent out the announcement,
and everybody's talking about it like it's going to be a real attack
this time." Damn, Valryn thinks. But he probably thinks we're going
to ignore it again. I should keep this quiet. He sends out another
announcement on the /govern channel: "Keep this quiet; let's
surprise them." He then sends a /tell to Dazin: "Not again. Are you
actually going to show up this time, or should I just let the
newbies fight off your nonexistent army?" Dazin replies: "I don't
talk to human scum. =)"

Two days later, Nyktos and 45 dark elves are in Neriak Third Gate,
organizing into the teams for the raid. When they're ready, he gives
the word, and they move out. Buffs are cast, binders are prepared,
and everyone runs across East Commons to West Freeport. As soon as
they zone in, the binders start binding everyone to the edge of the
zone, for quick death recovery. The zone is dead silent, though,
except for the occasional non-aligned person looking for a SoW or a
bind. It's too quiet, he thinks, knowing that's a clich .

Inside the gates, Valryn and the 40 Defenders he's picked out are
observing strict silence. They hear the dark elves enter, as they
all start /shouting in the Dark Speech. Good thing I had that troll
teach it to me, he thinks. As the dark elves spread out and advance
on the gate, Valryn gives the word, and the battle is joined.

A half hour of constant fighting later, and the defenders are
starting to show fatigue. Some of the members were still bound
elsewhere, and one unfortunate guy was bound all the way in Firiona
Vie - he was looking for a port back, but Valryn couldn't spare any
of the Defenders to do it for him. They'd been pushed back to the
gate, and with the guards down, Valryn knew he couldn't expect any
more NPC help until the dark elves made it to the militia
house. During official wars, the guards didn't respawn. A couple of
newbies were standing nearby, and as he ran past them looking for a
target, he hoped this would get them over to the Stone to swear
in. Even folks in their teens could still distract the attackers for
a few moments.

Just then Nyktos burst through the lines with one of his teams, and
sprinted for the militia house. At the same time, one of the newbies
sent a /tell: "Hey, my friend says they're coming in through the
sewers in EFP, too."

Damn.

Valryn sent a /govern: "Fall back to the stone; they're in the
sewers!"

Ten minutes later, the last of the defenders were standing shoulder
to shoulder in the hall outside the Stone Room in the militia
house. All the NPCs were dead, and only 6 of his men were left - the
rest were looting their corpses, trying to get some mana back, or
running back to the fight. Once the dark elves pushed through here,
it would be a tough struggle to get them out; they'd start binding
everyone to the room.

Nyktos knew he was within a few moments of victory, and personally
led the final push. He knew he was no warrior, but sometimes when he
got this close, he'd pretend he was a wizard, unloading his mana in
direct damage spells that weren't efficient, but were a lot of
fun. His lieutenant, a necromancer, was summoning a new pet behind
him, and on the other side, his Shadow Knight aide was getting ready
to try a Harm Touch. It won't work, Nyktos grumbled to himself -
Harm Touch almost never worked.

Valryn, barely able to type in the fighting, sent a message to his
group: "need heal!"

And then the harm touch hit, and he died.

The Defenders went down a few moments later, and while the
rear-guard held the hall against reinforcements, Nyktos bound
himself to the room, and then clicked on the Stone in the
middle. "Do you wish to declare this Stone captured?" He clicked
Yes, and knew that a message was going out then to all the Defenders
of Freeport: "Your stone has been captured by Neriak! You have two
hours to retake it!"

Two hours. I only have to hold them off for two hours.

As his group all clicked on the stone to register themselves as
captors as well, Nyktos thought about his defenses. They could let
up to 5 of the Freeport scum in - once 6 Freeport Defenders had
clicked on the stone, the capture attempt would fail, and the war
would end. He sent tells to his raiders to keep the entrances to the
Militia Building courtyard blocked, and use direct damage on anyone
trying to use Levitate or Dead Man Floating to run over their heads.

Valryn saw the message and started swearing, sending /tells to
everyone he could think of. The leader of Qeynos wasn't logged on,
but the leader of Felwithe was. He promised to tell his people to
get over to Freeport, and start porting defenders over as soon as he
could. Valryn thought it wouldn't be enough. He was surprised, then,
and filled with hope, when the group of 12 gnomes arrived in West
Freeport, where he was waiting for a corpse recovery from a friendly
Necromancer. "Hail," he said, and when the first of the gnomes
started casting, he thought it was an incoming buff. And when he
died, he saw a /tell from the Gnome leader, Smollet: "Guess you wish
you signed that trade agreement, huh?"

Two hours later, the city belonged to Neriak. Or, more specifically,
the city belonged to Nyktos and his 5 group members. Valryn and the
other Defenders all got the message: "Your stone has been lost! Your
team has been unseated, and you have one week to mount an attack and
retake the city!"

In the Stone Room, Nyktos directed the recovery efforts and sent a
message to Dazin: "Now I rule in Freeport. Let's talk trade
agreements." On his interface window, he saw a new panel: "City
Leader." When he opened it, he saw the title, "Lord of Freeport,"
and grinned.

In the sewers under West Freeport, Valryn sent a /govern message
calling off the assaults. "We need to regroup and plan - and get
some allies to help us retake the city. We've got a week; let's make
use of it." His City Leader interface window now read: "Lord of
Freeport - In Exile." He knew that in a week, it would change to
read "Unaligned," and his ties to Freeport would be gone. And I'm
not going to let that happen; I worked too damn hard for that city.
-- Isuldir

Discuss: Comments?


--<cut>--
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev