PVP games/elements?



  • I'm curious, if a game was designed with PVP or PVP like elements in mind, would people want to play? What I mean to say is that the whole ICA=ICC is upheld. You are a vampire, you spill the beans to a mortal and the news hits the Prince. Blood hunt is called and PC Sheriff shows up and takes you out.

    Going a bit further, you are in a crime family and want to take over so you and your crew through various merits and jobs take over the support infrastructure of the family (goons, external support, ect.) and then take out the head of the family.

    There is more and more to be said but is that appealing to players? High risk/high reward and such?



  • People were lining up to play RfK, and it employed PvP as an integral part of the game, from bottom up. So yes, I think if you make a well built game with solid foundations, it's a good way to go.



  • I'd play PvP only if there was reward/recognition for losing/dying.

    Like old Battletech 3065 Mux. The one that had no real plot other than playing tactical simulation, the port from the old FASA tabletop into a mu*, where it was random battles half the time. The place was set up so you had x amount of game credit to buy mechs, got y amount for losing, z amount for winning, and could buy more mechs that could be used in the simulations. Even while learning and losing the complex control system/interface, players still got xp and credit to buy more mechs to use.

    Something like that place, minus the dozen or so various tactical screens one had to get good at learning to view all while using aliases to quick drive/steer/shoot/communicate with other players.

    If people can come back, even if slightly less than where they were, but with some level of growth from the dead char, I think that helps encourage the risk of dying in a PvP element.


  • Pitcrew

    The trick to pulling it off would be maintaining faith in staff impartiality.
    RfK managed this with polices about the roles staff alts could play, but those very same policies were then a large contributor to the end of the game.
    PK Muds do this with the role of code as the final arbiter, though at times you will still here sqawking about the level of fairness from people playing those games.
    I don't mean to discourage but coming up with a long term way of maintaining that trust would be the largest and most important issue for a perspective PvP heavy MU* to tackle.


  • Admin

    @ThatGuyThere said in PVP games/elements?:

    The trick to pulling it off would be maintaining faith in staff impartiality.

    I don't know how anyone can play on a game whose staff they don't feel they can trust. I mean, aside from PrPs.


  • Pitcrew

    @Arkandel
    I think I can count on one hand the number of games i have trusted staff, RfK is one of them.
    Now I would not play on a game were I distrusted staff, but my default setting for staff or any other person is pretty much wary observation when it some to trust.


  • Creator

    This was tried once, as Depraved Creations. Originally it was supposed to be an open cgen PvP-focused WoD game (it was billed as a "PK-fest"), but we all ended up becoming friendly with each other and there was a sept with Bastet, Garou, a werebear, and a couple Rokea. Also the Traditions started working together with the Technocracy.

    Not saying it can't work, but you'd have to probably enforce the PK-required policy, otherwise everyone will ignore it and do their own thing.

    Like any policy on a MU*, really.



  • @somasatori said in PVP games/elements?:

    This was tried once, as Depraved Creations. Originally it was supposed to be an open cgen PvP-focused WoD game (it was billed as a "PK-fest"), but we all ended up becoming friendly with each other and there was a sept with Bastet, Garou, a werebear, and a couple Rokea. Also the Traditions started working together with the Technocracy.

    Not saying it can't work, but you'd have to probably enforce the PK-required policy, otherwise everyone will ignore it and do their own thing.

    Like any policy on a MU*, really.

    Yeah but that's cool. I mean the idea of that element always being there...

    Like I was laughing playing Division like a week ago. Myself and 2 friends go in the dark zone, we're fighting enemies and then in comes 2 other agents. Suddenly its a mexican stand off, we're taking position to make sure they don't attack us, they're doing the same and then we start killing badguys together. Then at some point one team member got caught in a cross fire and we went into full PK mode...

    The point is the threat/or ability for someone to turn on anyone at anytime adds some extra umf that most mu's don't have. Does that make sense?


  • Admin

    @ThatGuyThere said in PVP games/elements?:

    Now I would not play on a game were I distrusted staff, but my default setting for staff or any other person is pretty much wary observation when it some to trust.

    It still doesn't make sense to me, because most of the reasons I'd have to mistrust staff for would involve things that are impossible to observe. Are they looking at +jobs they shouldn't be? Giving their alts more XP than the rest of us?

    Those are not actions which can be monitored by players, and issues like favoritism are extremely difficult to judge objectively even if you're watching very closely since you can't know what's going on in their head; did Bob become Primogen because they thought he was the best candidate or because of some ties to a staff alt?

    I mean it still depends on the definition of 'trust'.


  • Pitcrew

    @ThatOneDude
    One big difference between any video game and a mush though. Get killed in a a video game and you might lose some gear or xp but you are back in things quickly.
    In a MUSH you are looking at not being able ot play for four days minimum unless you have an alt already made.



  • @ThatGuyThere said in PVP games/elements?:

    @ThatOneDude
    One big difference between any video game and a mush though. Get killed in a a video game and you might lose some gear or xp but you are back in things quickly.
    In a MUSH you are looking at not being able ot play for four days minimum unless you have an alt already made.

    Yeah, I kind of like the idea BITN did with the alt in reserve... but yeah for me I'd say most people should have an alt ready to go.

    I'd like to think a game like this would make death semi painless but one topic that came up is how to deal with it. I'd be of a mind that you'd have to lose a bit to make it at least worth not having a revolving door of PCs that are ever stronger...right? You get ganked in PvP you roll in w/ a new PC with 50% XP of the last maybe even 75%. I mean if not the juggernauts would just keep staying as the big bad PCs/players. Right?



  • @Arkandel said in PVP games/elements?:

    @ThatGuyThere said in PVP games/elements?:

    Now I would not play on a game were I distrusted staff, but my default setting for staff or any other person is pretty much wary observation when it some to trust.

    It still doesn't make sense to me, because most of the reasons I'd have to mistrust staff for would involve things that are impossible to observe. Are they looking at +jobs they shouldn't be? Giving their alts more XP than the rest of us?

    Those are not actions which can be monitored by players, and issues like favoritism are extremely difficult to judge objectively even if you're watching very closely since you can't know what's going on in their head; did Bob become Primogen because they thought he was the best candidate or because of some ties to a staff alt?

    I mean it still depends on the definition of 'trust'.

    Agreed, but how can be transparent enough do people don't worry to much without giving away to much? I think a rule like: Staff doesn't take any positions of power or assigns them works or should go a long way right?


  • Pitcrew

    @Arkandel
    Both of your examples are observable by players not provable. If staffer Alt seems to always have a ten pool for things needed where every one else has 6 or 7 then yes something is hinky weather added xp or just fudging stats directly. Even on CoH with xp totals in the thousands I still see folks rolling things with 6 dice now and then yes even staff people. Or if Staffer continuously knows more then they should about things weather I can see that they accessed a job or not I will make that logical inference.

    But yes defining terms would help. For me trust equals I will believe that person is innocent until a pretty heavy burden of proof is shown. Not just things could that could be taken the wrong way but pretty solid evidence. To misuse a legal term they would have a presumption of innocence with me.
    Distrust is when I actively believe someone is shady as hell and likely looking for a way to unfairly benefit.
    Then there is the vast middle ground of people where I would look at things concerning them with neither a positive or negative spin and make a judgement based on the information available.


  • Admin

    @ThatOneDude , @ThatGuyThere , your usernames are giving me a headache.


  • Pitcrew

    @ThatOneDude
    I think that rule is a good one, though expect a lot of push back from it. It was essentially the rule at RfK and it made finding staff difficult from what I heard.



  • @Arkandel said in PVP games/elements?:

    @ThatOneDude , @ThatGuyThere , your usernames are giving me a headache.

    We need a ThatOneDudeNamedGuy


  • Creator

    @ThatOneDude said in PVP games/elements?:

    @somasatori said in PVP games/elements?:

    This was tried once, as Depraved Creations. Originally it was supposed to be an open cgen PvP-focused WoD game (it was billed as a "PK-fest"), but we all ended up becoming friendly with each other and there was a sept with Bastet, Garou, a werebear, and a couple Rokea. Also the Traditions started working together with the Technocracy.

    Not saying it can't work, but you'd have to probably enforce the PK-required policy, otherwise everyone will ignore it and do their own thing.

    Like any policy on a MU*, really.

    Yeah but that's cool. I mean the idea of that element always being there...

    Like I was laughing playing Division like a week ago. Myself and 2 friends go in the dark zone, we're fighting enemies and then in comes 2 other agents. Suddenly its a mexican stand off, we're taking position to make sure they don't attack us, they're doing the same and then we start killing badguys together. Then at some point one team member got caught in a cross fire and we went into full PK mode...

    The point is the threat/or ability for someone to turn on anyone at anytime adds some extra umf that most mu's don't have. Does that make sense?

    Oh, yeah. That does make sense. It could potentially work, especially with an external adversarial group that's pushing at the players to fight them. There are several good systems that could work for this, all the way from D&D to CoD. If you did it as a D&D/Pathfinder game, you could make it so that dungeons and adventure are few and far between. Make it a relatively low-magic setting, where magic items are incredibly powerful and often storied and highly sought. If one group of adventurers catches wind of a +1 sword, it's a big deal and then word gets out, so you've got multiple adventuring companies trying to play king of the mountain for the item. This would more or less enforce itself, since D&D is definitely a game of He Who Has The Most Toys. Throw in some monsters to create the tension of "well, we have to work together to put down this Beholder," and then after the Beholder's dead, the fights break out over who gets the spoils.

    CoD, you could do it as Geist-only, since Krewes can be generally antagonistic toward one another. Set it in a city or area where there's a large group of Sacrosanct that have taken up a lot of the city's resources and claim most of it for themselves, where initially Krewes might have to work together. But then they start to realize that Haunts and Cenotes are in short supply and one claims one, another claims it back, and there you go.

    You could even do this with something like Exalted. Make a purely Dragon-Blooded game with the idea of the Wyld Hunt being around, so the players have some reason to try to work together at some points, but they're all trying to get their piece of the Creation pie, as it were. This way, you'd have one Circle of Dragon-Blooded fighting other Circles of Dragon-Blooded because they feel they're more worthy to receive, say, this particular Artifact that's been willed to members in either Circle, or the lands of their family, or whatever. Dragon-Blooded are incredibly political and will tend to kill each other if they can do it quietly instead of argue it out.

    Alternately, you could probably even make a game similar to the Division, where you have a Dark Zone (or hell, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.) and you'd have separate teams going in for their own reasons, and might end up in similar situations to the one you described. There are more than a few ways to cover that kind of thing.

    Tension's the key there, though. Enforcing the tension that no one's really your ally unless you've specifically gotten them to join your crew (and even then, who knows), and everyone's kinda out for themselves, that'll create enough tension where the PCs shouldn't trust each other because they have no reason to trust each other. It'd be an interesting experiment.



  • @somasatori said in PVP games/elements?:

    @ThatOneDude said in PVP games/elements?:

    @somasatori said in PVP games/elements?:

    This was tried once, as Depraved Creations. Originally it was supposed to be an open cgen PvP-focused WoD game (it was billed as a "PK-fest"), but we all ended up becoming friendly with each other and there was a sept with Bastet, Garou, a werebear, and a couple Rokea. Also the Traditions started working together with the Technocracy.

    Not saying it can't work, but you'd have to probably enforce the PK-required policy, otherwise everyone will ignore it and do their own thing.

    Like any policy on a MU*, really.

    Yeah but that's cool. I mean the idea of that element always being there...

    Like I was laughing playing Division like a week ago. Myself and 2 friends go in the dark zone, we're fighting enemies and then in comes 2 other agents. Suddenly its a mexican stand off, we're taking position to make sure they don't attack us, they're doing the same and then we start killing badguys together. Then at some point one team member got caught in a cross fire and we went into full PK mode...

    The point is the threat/or ability for someone to turn on anyone at anytime adds some extra umf that most mu's don't have. Does that make sense?

    Oh, yeah. That does make sense. It could potentially work, especially with an external adversarial group that's pushing at the players to fight them. There are several good systems that could work for this, all the way from D&D to CoD. If you did it as a D&D/Pathfinder game, you could make it so that dungeons and adventure are few and far between. Make it a relatively low-magic setting, where magic items are incredibly powerful and often storied and highly sought. If one group of adventurers catches wind of a +1 sword, it's a big deal and then word gets out, so you've got multiple adventuring companies trying to play king of the mountain for the item. This would more or less enforce itself, since D&D is definitely a game of He Who Has The Most Toys. Throw in some monsters to create the tension of "well, we have to work together to put down this Beholder," and then after the Beholder's dead, the fights break out over who gets the spoils.

    CoD, you could do it as Geist-only, since Krewes can be generally antagonistic toward one another. Set it in a city or area where there's a large group of Sacrosanct that have taken up a lot of the city's resources and claim most of it for themselves, where initially Krewes might have to work together. But then they start to realize that Haunts and Cenotes are in short supply and one claims one, another claims it back, and there you go.

    You could even do this with something like Exalted. Make a purely Dragon-Blooded game with the idea of the Wyld Hunt being around, so the players have some reason to try to work together at some points, but they're all trying to get their piece of the Creation pie, as it were. This way, you'd have one Circle of Dragon-Blooded fighting other Circles of Dragon-Blooded because they feel they're more worthy to receive, say, this particular Artifact that's been willed to members in either Circle, or the lands of their family, or whatever. Dragon-Blooded are incredibly political and will tend to kill each other if they can do it quietly instead of argue it out.

    Alternately, you could probably even make a game similar to the Division, where you have a Dark Zone (or hell, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.) and you'd have separate teams going in for their own reasons, and might end up in similar situations to the one you described. There are more than a few ways to cover that kind of thing.

    Tension's the key there, though. Enforcing the tension that no one's really your ally unless you've specifically gotten them to join your crew (and even then, who knows), and everyone's kinda out for themselves, that'll create enough tension where the PCs shouldn't trust each other because they have no reason to trust each other. It'd be an interesting experiment.

    Yyyyeeeessss...

    Right on the money. Originally in the minds eye of a friend and I we thought Hunter w/ a capital H. That allows for tiered hunters to help and hinder based on territory, belief and goals. All the while the other splats are actually really badass vs Mortal/Hunter so there is all that as well. Keeping the game open to just Hunters though still makes them the small fish in the pond, the under dog so it still kind of instills that feeling to stories as well.



  • Have I been playing WoD wrong? All World of Darkness games are PvP. If your Splat interacts with my Splat, you die, sucka. If you have what I want, you die, sucka. If I fail frenzy, you die, sucka.


  • Creator

    @HorrorHound said in PVP games/elements?:

    Have I been playing WoD wrong? All World of Darkness games are PvP. If your Splat interacts with my Splat, you die, sucka. If you have what I want, you die, sucka. If I fail frenzy, you die, sucka.

    Nope, that's a pretty common theme in WoD. It shifted a bit in tone with nWoD/CoD in that splats are not naturally antagonistic toward one another (except Hunters vs. everyone else). You've been doing it right!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to MU Soapbox was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.