[GD-Design] Persistency and PvP

[Brian H. <bri...@py...>]

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