[MUD-Dev] RE: Value of PvP avatars (was: To Kill an Avatar)

[Brendan O'Brien]

Paul Schwanz wrote:
> Castronova, Edward wrote:

>> The best evidence that PvP is a less fun way to play, for the
>> average player, is not in the price of PvP avatars but in the
>> fact that PvP servers seem to have low populations relative to
>> non-PvP servers in the same game.

> If that's the best evidence, then I'd be much more hesitant to
> conclude as you've done that PvP is a less fun way to play.  It
> seems not only possible, but quite probable to me that the fun
> experienced in games is much more wholistic in nature, occuring in
> the grey areas where different sub-systems of the game interact,
> and resisting the sort of desconstruction that would allow us to
> evaluate how much fun such sub-systems are without taking into
> account their relationship to the rest of the game.  In other
> words, you can't simply take a game designed around PvE, plop in
> PvP instead, and then make conclusions about games designed aroun
> PvP based on the popularity of your hacked results.

I agree with you completely, and would even take it a little bit
further.  Simply stated, a low population on a PvP server need not
say anything directly about the popularity of PvP.  Taking DAOC, for
example, you have a game with a very healthy PvP system already in
existence on the "regular" servers.  Considering this, how would you
rate the performance of the "PvP" servers?  Should we not also
consider the fact the PvP tastes tend to be far more complex in
nature than PvE, resulting in many fans of the playstyle being
unhappy with a certain implementation?  I may truly enjoy PvP, but
the prospect of playing on a "gank-fest" server need not appeal to
me.  Some of us prefer a bit more depth and roleplaying, with a
reason for their kills.  Others want the satisfaction of making
their opponents suffer, by killing newbies and looting whenever
possible.  My point is that different types of PvP fans do not
necessarily want the same type of environment to play in.

Furthermore, what would you have to say about the PvE server in
Camelot?  Would it be accurate to examine the low population on this
server and determine that PvE is a less fun environment to play in?
Perhaps we should stop trying to judge people as being in either one
extreme or the other.  The truth of the popularity lies somewhere in
the middle, where players want to be able to experience both styles
of play, where neither is implemented as a mere afterthought.

If you really want to examine those server numbers and draw some
conclusions about why players pick one server over another, you need
to go a whole lot deeper than this.  Take rp servers, for example.
In most rp servers I have played on, you actually see a very small
percentage of people actively roleplaying.  However, they always
seem to be high population servers, even considering the lack of
true rp that you find.  Much of this has to do with the expectations
of the maturity level of your player base.  People expect to find
and older and more mature group on an rp server, with the exact
opposite expectations on a pvp server.  Those ideas and stereotypes
may have more to do with a certain server's population than many of
the other given factors.  The fact that I have heard many players
request a minimum age server only serves to reinforce this idea.
Point being, PvP combat itself is certainly not the only factor
luring or driving off players on a server.


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