Value of Kill vs Rate of Killing

[Slamz]

   
(to be fair, EQ is probably towards the middle of the chart and Lineage II may be up there with EVE)


EVE highlights something worth considering: value of a kill vs rate of killing.

WAR and WOW are at the far right side of the scale: you can kill a hundred people during a casual play session and none of it means anything. Unless maybe you interfered with their PvE, they probably don't even care that they died. It high action but low value.

EVE is at the far left side.


Bah, meeting time. More later. Discuss amongst yourselves!

[Diggles]

I like the middle-slower, because the fights are so much more technical, its not just a bunch of button mashing. You have chances to see whats happening and make alterations in your strategy. You are thinking the entire time and hopefully not frantically mashing buttons and hitting stuff accidental. You need to know how the ships/modules/3-d space factor into each other. you learn something each fight

I also enjoy FPS servers that have 10-15 second respawns, unless there is a medic/revive system like BF1942/QuakeWars had, which I'm willing to have 15-30second respawns.

The insta-respawn servers are just spam with no consequence for dying.

Eve, EQ mid level pvp, LoTR, FPS w 10-15sec respawns

[Snowreap]

PotBS would also be more towards the middle.

this reminds me, in conjunction with this thread of a social problem: different players will value these things differently. some will believe that rate of killing is the most important metric, while others will claim that the quality/difficulty of your kills should be the most important metric.

if your game measures both (or attempts to), then this can put these two groups at each others' throats. even if your game doesn't try to measure both, the players will end up trying to do so anyway, and they'll still be at each others' throats.

so maybe the problem isn't worth thinking about.

-ken

[Dustie]

Can you plot some points on your graph? This should probably be one of the first questions asked when starting to work on a new PvP MMO: "Where will this game sit on the kill value curve?"

EVE (where you have it)
POBS (1/4th of the way down)
EQ (1/2 way down the line)
Lineage (3/4th down the line)
WoW (near the high rate extreme)
Planetside (at the high rate extreme)

[Slamz]

I like the middle-slower, because the fights are so much more technical, its not just a bunch of button mashing.

IMO that's a separate discussion, which is "how long does it take to kill someone once the fight starts". Technically you could end up on the right side of the chart if every fight took 15 minutes but they were all back to back and largely without value (that is, it was a long fight but you didn't get any loot or lose any XP, and the next fight is right around the corner).


EVE vs POTBS is a good example of the difference.

POTBS fights take even longer than EVE fights but they occur much more frequently, so POTBS would be further right than EVE. The value of a kill is less and probably for that reason there are more kills.


Or you could move around on the chart within the same game depending on what you were doing...
- WOW Battlegrounds would be extreme far right: rapid, lossless kills.
- WOW open field PvP would be further left: dying means a little more (interruption to PvE) and fights are harder to find.

So the mechanics are completely identical but battlegrounds are further right because it's more killing for less value (I'm defining "value" mostly in terms of what the loser risks).

- EVE militia combat could be more towards the middle as well: people engaging in a lot of combat but only in ships they intend to risk in PvP (and thus represents less loss for them -- they trade away value in favor of frequency).


I think I prefer things towards the far left but I don't know what percentage of gamers enjoys that. Maybe a useful overlay would be like:
   

That's just my impression -- that when it comes to PvP, WOW has like a 1000x as many players as EVE. Probably more than a 1000x. Whatever EVE's population, only a small portion seems to have any interest in PvP.

I'm just not sure if fewer players enjoy "high risk PvP" or if fewer players engage in it because so few games offer it. I mean, there are plenty of reasons more people don't play EVE. It's hard to guess how much of a factor "PvP risk" is in "game popularity".



So the bottom line question, I think, is this:

Do you kill your game by making PvP involve too much value?

That is, is it necessary to mimic WOW/WAR and have "no loss on death" style PvP in order to be popular?

[Fretty]

I like the middle-slower, because the fights are so much more technical, its not just a bunch of button mashing. You have chances to see whats happening and make alterations in your strategy. You are thinking the entire time and hopefully not frantically mashing buttons and hitting stuff accidental. You need to know how the ships/modules/3-d space factor into each other. you learn something each fight

I also enjoy FPS servers that have 10-15 second respawns, unless there is a medic/revive system like BF1942/QuakeWars had, which I'm willing to have 15-30second respawns.

The insta-respawn servers are just spam with no consequence for dying.

Eve, EQ mid level pvp, LoTR, FPS w 10-15sec respawns

I agree with you completely Diggles. The same reason why the little to no death penalty in new games is really a game killer to me (where is item loss? Exp loss? Time loss? ANY loss? Not just a 'debuff' that only lasts 5-15min...). I never played LotR Online, but I was interested. Was there PvP on any server, or just PvP servers, or...? And what was the penalty for death?

Neocron had XP and item loss. It was an FPS MMO with customizable weapons, skills, etc etc. Weapons had to be built from parts, each epic weapon requiring a set of parts to build it, and the potential to drop that item on death for your enemy to loot was enough to make a relatively bland MMO quite interesting. The PvP ANYwhere but in the main city (guards would gank you if you started fights there, much like Concord in EVE) also was excellent, it meant you were never safe, which added intensity to the game.

DAoC also had a decent death system. I forget if there was XP loss, but I do remember that if you died in ORvR and didn't get a rez, good luck getting back into the battle in any timely manner (especially if the battle was on enemy grounds). I also liked how the high end PvE was IN the ORvR lakes, therefor pushing the RvR aspect of the game. Basically if you wanted to play DAoC, you had to want RvR, or get out.

[Fretty]

Slamz, you're basically saying that less people enjoy Eve because of the PvP aspect of the game (according to your chart), when I believe there are many other reasons than that, such as the lack of levels (hardcore players can't level up quicker than casual players), lack of overall story, fully player run economy, lack of any real grind (aside from mining maybe), the fact that players have to set their OWN goals (the game doesn't ever tell them what to do or should do) and many more.

Also, combat in general in Eve seems to be somewhat of a deterrant for a lot of players, as it doesn't APPEAR as involving as other games (you can't run around, jump, hide behind rocks, etc...blah blah).

Eve = my love, so this is in no way a bash of the game, I'm just pointing out what sets Eve aside from the vast majority of other templated MMOs out there, which can in turn work against it in the "typical" player's mind.

[Slamz]

Slamz, you're basically saying that less people enjoy Eve because of the PvP aspect of the game (according to your chart), when I believe there are many other reasons than that

That's the question of the day.

For example, suppose WOW made it so that when you died, you lost a bubble of XP, including stripping away levels.

Certainly WOW would move to the left in terms of frequency of kills -- fewer people would PvP with abandon if there was risk involved.

But would that make them enjoy the game less?

I dunno.

I technically enjoy EVE PvP more than WOW PvP. Many other factors take away from my enjoyment but if I could log in to EVE every day and harass some dork in his battleship I would enjoy the game immensely. The high value of kills (and thus the high risk of death) makes it enjoyable for me.

But I dunno what percent of the population I present in this regard. 5%? 50%? 95%? I have a feeling it's closer to 5% but I don't have enough basis to do more than make wild guesses.

If you made a WOW that was identical to WOW except that death was really meaningful would it be more popular or less popular and by how much?

[Ulfen]

If you made a WOW that was identical to WOW except that death was really meaningful would it be more popular or less popular and by how much?

I think it would make the game significantly less popular. There are too many people that don't want there gaming experience "ruined" by other players. I have already come to grips with that fact that what I like in a game is not shared by the majority, even by some members of The Purge. When we started playing Warhammer I complained about the zero consequence deaths in a game that was supposed to be primarily a PvP game. I truly hated World of Warcraft when it came out which is why I did not play with the guild even though most of you played for a long time, I hate it even more now that most games are trying to mimic it.

[Kakarat]

Only thing that matter$ to companies to $urvive $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$hall I continue?

[Slamz]

Nothing wrong with $$.

Question is, how much $$ does WOW/WAR actually lose by having such a fluffy PvP environment?

We look at WOW and think, "Gee, they sure are popular, they must be doing it right" but we can't be sure of how many disenfranchised players they're actually missing/losing because the PvP was just kinda flaky -- it didn't really matter and it wasn't a big part of the game.


I can only really rely on the anecdotal evidence we have.

I would suggest that what ultimately makes The Purge quit these games is two things --
* The PvP is flaky and insubstantial (or too hard to get into / keep up with)
* We eventually tire of the PvE

It's not the harsh death penalty that makes us quit Lineage II or POTBS. I don't think it's the light death penalty that kept is in WOW or WAR. I think it's vaguely possible that if WOW had incorporated a better death penalty and a more substantial PvP system, we'd still be playing it.

Similarly, I don't think it was novelty that kept me in EQ for 3 years. The novelty wore off after about 3 months. It was substantial, risky, blood-pumping PvP that kept me in for so long (and the horribly dull PvE that eventually drove me out).

Along the same lines, EVE, frankly, is the most boring game known to man. The only reason I enjoy it is because the PvP penalty is steep. EVE is one of the few games where I'll fly into battle and actually have to take a deep breath and focus on not getting worked up because it's actually exciting to go into battle with other players. There's risk! It turns out that I can put up with fighting rocks and other dull activities if the carrot at the end is risky, reputation-impacting, bragging-rights PvP.

Without the risk -- without the loss -- I don't think PvP really has the same...gravity...the same ability to draw people in and keep them there. Someone kills you in WOW, who cares? It was rarely worth keeping track of their name. In EVE, it's personal and you want to play for another month just to even the score.


I'm sure it drives some people away, too, but I dunno how much of the population that really is.

[OrsunVZ]

The thing is that WAR marketed itself not as a wow-killer, however they did manage to carve out a rather large portion of the player base with its game model. Clearly we would like to see a more hardcore, meaningful, death-system in place, so clearly there is a market for it. But there is no way that all of the WAR player base would subscribe to it. So by creating a game that catres to the style of play we would enjoy, there's a good bet that they would be limiting the number of players they are looking to get.

So money is the driving factor, and I don't know too many businesses that are willing to start a company by first eliminating such a huge part of their customer base. On the otherhand, there are so many mmos coming out right now, it will not be too much longer before one HAS to carve out a niche in the genre in order to find success.

[Diggles]

The thing is that WAR marketed itself not as a wow-killer, however they did manage to carve out a rather large portion of the player base with its game model. Clearly we would like to see a more hardcore, meaningful, death-system in place, so clearly there is a market for it. But there is no way that all of the WAR player base would subscribe to it. So by creating a game that catres to the style of play we would enjoy, there's a good bet that they would be limiting the number of players they are looking to get.

So money is the driving factor, and I don't know too many businesses that are willing to start a company by first eliminating such a huge part of their customer base. On the otherhand, there are so many mmos coming out right now, it will not be too much longer before one HAS to carve out a niche in the genre in order to find success.

ID Software started as a non-profit company by using the shareware model, now they are the prophets of FPS games and 3d engines. Most people are too lazy to look into creative ways around problems. Outside of Eve & Planetside, I dont see much innovation at all in MMO's.

[Slamz]

That sort of leads into another question I've always had:

How representative of the player population is The Purge?

We always seem quick to discard our own views and evidence, figuring that we do not represent a significant portion of the gaming population, but I think we underestimate ourselves in this regard.

IMO, what would make a good Purge game is:

* Meaningful deaths and kills
* Goal oriented gameplay
* Combat which is more strategic/tactical and less twitchy
* Gameplay which easily allows you to come and go without disrupting everyone else
* Character balance that lets you hit the ground running and be useful without having to spend a lot of time playing catch-up


I feel like a game that met Purge standards would also meet the standards of a lot of disenfranchised gamers. I think there are more people like us than we give credit for. I think a lot of people continue to play WOW simply because there isn't a game that meets the above criteria.

[1000xZero]

I think a lot of people continue to play WOW simply because there isn't a game that meets the above criteria.

That is definitely true.

And don't forget the social aspect. People tie other people to games long after they are bored/frustrated with that game.

[Hoofhurr]

Whether it was Mechwarrior or Rainbow 6 or any other game, I always preferred the tournament formats with the "No respawn" setting that meant that if you only get one spawn per map and you had to wait it out until everyone else was dead before a new round started. Then in the leagues you would get 3 or 5 rounds to decide the match. Fast or instant respawn games always annoyed me or didn't seem as involving.

That being said sometimes you don't have the time or patience to sit around in no respawn games and you just want some action, quick and dirty. So instant games are good for that.

As far as time it takes to kill something, I enjoyed the pace of EQ. You could literally start a fight and it could span 3-4 zones in the game as you chased the person around whilst trying to type and call in backup or an intercept group. That upped the emotional ante to the fight. I also prefer no time limit chess to speed chess. When you lose it sucks because you literally spent an hour or more on the one match but when you win it was all worth it.

Lastly, I think you guys are over-analyzing our response to any one game. Let's face it. We get bored. Easily. The more familiar with video games we get the more quickly we get bored and as the years accrue it takes huge leaps in mechanics to keep us awed. This is magnified by the fact that when we do find a new game we saturate ourselves in it. Unlike a good TV series where an hour a week keeps the demand high, with video games we tend to glut ourselves on anything new that comes a long until we want to vomit. It's classic binge and purge with gaming as the digital substance of abuse. If you limited yourself to one hour a week playing video games you'd still be trying to master Frogger.

[Diggles]

Whether it was Mechwarrior or Rainbow 6 or any other game, I always preferred the tournament formats with the "No respawn" setting that meant that if you only get one spawn per map and you had to wait it out until everyone else was dead before a new round started. Then in the leagues you would get 3 or 5 rounds to decide the match. Fast or instant respawn games always annoyed me or didn't seem as involving.

That being said sometimes you don't have the time or patience to sit around in no respawn games and you just want some action, quick and dirty. So instant games are good for that.

As far as time it takes to kill something, I enjoyed the pace of EQ. You could literally start a fight and it could span 3-4 zones in the game as you chased the person around whilst trying to type and call in backup or an intercept group. That upped the emotional ante to the fight. I also prefer no time limit chess to speed chess. When you lose it sucks because you literally spent an hour or more on the one match but when you win it was all worth it.

Lastly, I think you guys are over-analyzing our response to any one game. Let's face it. We get bored. Easily. The more familiar with video games we get the more quickly we get bored and as the years accrue it takes huge leaps in mechanics to keep us awed. This is magnified by the fact that when we do find a new game we saturate ourselves in it. Unlike a good TV series where an hour a week keeps the demand high, with video games we tend to glut ourselves on anything new that comes a long until we want to vomit. It's classic binge and purge with gaming as the digital substance of abuse. If you limited yourself to one hour a week playing video games you'd still be trying to master Frogger.

I think your completely wrong. Most MMO games are so one dimensional they get boring quickly. There needs to be a good variety of things to do and a dynamic world.

TeamFortress is perhaps one of the greatest examples. What are you in the mood for? Twitch pulse pounding action, then play an attack class. Laid back, then do medic or engy. THe variety of types of game modes are excellent as well. CTF, command point, cart, etc.

Jedi Knight and AvP did awesome game modes too, but just didnt have staying power.

[Hoofhurr]

TF2 is your example of a dynamic world? If you could switch between classes in WAR or WoW like you could in TF2 you would have access to minimally the same variety. MMOs are at least as variable. That however wasn't my point. I still fail to see any connection between what you stated and what I stated.

[Diggles]

TF2 is your example of a dynamic world? If you could switch between classes in WAR or WoW like you could in TF2 you would have access to minimally the same variety. MMOs are at least as variable. That however wasn't my point. I still fail to see any connection between what you stated and what I stated.

New maps are created on a daily basis, most of them suck, but that option is always available. Warhammer world is stagnant. Keeps flipflop, nothing changes with the world changes.

Natural Selection is probably the best dynamic FPS, because it combines RTS+FPS. Depending on the strategy of the teams, the map play will vary widely. NS2 will exemplify this even more with dynamic 'infestation'

[Fretty]

The thing is that WAR marketed itself not as a wow-killer, however they did manage to carve out a rather large portion of the player base with its game model. Clearly we would like to see a more hardcore, meaningful, death-system in place, so clearly there is a market for it. But there is no way that all of the WAR player base would subscribe to it. So by creating a game that catres to the style of play we would enjoy, there's a good bet that they would be limiting the number of players they are looking to get.

So money is the driving factor, and I don't know too many businesses that are willing to start a company by first eliminating such a huge part of their customer base. On the otherhand, there are so many mmos coming out right now, it will not be too much longer before one HAS to carve out a niche in the genre in order to find success.

As much as catering to the players that prefer what we "The Purge" prefer in an MMO would cut out a lot of customers and cost them money, catering to the opposite also costs them money (look at how many cancelled WAR subscriptions there are in The Purge alone). The question is, are there more of them, or us?

[Fretty]

Whether it was Mechwarrior or Rainbow 6 or any other game, I always preferred the tournament formats with the "No respawn" setting that meant that if you only get one spawn per map and you had to wait it out until everyone else was dead before a new round started. Then in the leagues you would get 3 or 5 rounds to decide the match. Fast or instant respawn games always annoyed me or didn't seem as involving.

I'm all for that. Both those games, as well as any other FPS or shooter game I've enjoyed, I've always gone for the "no respawn, best out of X" game modes. It is the most 'risk of death' you can get in those types of games. Gears of War 2 Execution mode is my shooter addiction at the moment (yea yea, console, I know).

[Diggles]

In my experience, (HL Mods) these systems are counter productive to team games. It encourages camping and 'every man for himself'' instead of working as a team to accomplish the goal/mission.

Where as a game like DoD:S I'm willing to expend myself to further team goals. Sure I'll hop out and see if theres an MG/Sniper setup for my team, because I know in 15-30 seconds I can come back...not wait 2-5 minutes for a whole new round.

Rainbow 6 may be an extreme example though, as realism is part of its appeal.