Anti-Aliased: You don't need PvP to be successful, honest pt. 2
Screw PvP combat, we need PvP conflict
The minute you hear about PvP, you know what it is. It's groups of people bashing each other in the face like cavemen. While that's all well and good, combat is only one part of a spectrum of player vs. player activities. We need to stop focusing solely on the idea of PvP combat and perhaps look towards the larger picture of PvP conflict. Final Fantasy XI proves this point through the use of the conquest system. Players weren't bashing each other's face in, yet were participating in a conflict that changed how the game played and simultaneously provided rewards.
On the other side of the galaxy, EVE Online has become notorious for "trader combat." Where players go against one another in order to get goods out to the market and make a profit. Above those acts come social combat, where players make alliances and enemies as they participate in the other aspects of the game. Exploration could even go in this category, as players race through uncharted space to find caches of resources.
These ideas aren't unheard of, but they are unexplored. One of the best examples of how we don't make full use of our genres is the infamous rogue class. Rogues, by definition, are stealthy, thieving, and full of trickery. Their original portrayal in the genre is mostly through non-combat actions, like stealing. Yet, rogues never steal in our online games. Even if they do steal, it's almost always from monsters and not players.
So why not include pickpocketing? Is it because we don't want to limit it to one class or cause an uproar when one player can steal your stuff? Why not let all players have the option, and actually have a pickpocketing mini-game. Why not expand the concept of "illegal activities" and actually start to develop a justice system, where players can become guards and other players can attempt to get away with small crimes? Of course, we'll get to see an example of how well this will work when Realtime Worlds launches All Points Bulletin, but it is something to think about for our current line of MMOs.
Past the legal system, there are other methods of conflict. Card games, price haggling at player run shops, even running an actual shop or a locale can give players a brand new perspective of conflict and simultaneously provide another sink for virtual cash in the economy.
The synopsis
Don't feel that a game needs to have PvP in order to be viable. Games that can level their challenges (like Final Fantasy's level capped bosses, which make them eternally challenging) and can also present strong, solid methods of entertainment (like Bioshock's emphasis on storytelling and single-player objectives, rather than splitting resources between single-player and multi-player.)
But PvP as a concept needs to perhaps become broader, centering more on areas of dynamic conflict rather than stagnant combat situations. Even facerolling on your keyboard against someone else facerolling on their keyboard becomes old -- especially when gear differences lock out true, meaningful engagements.
Once we evolve how we approach PvP, we can start truly integrating the system into our designs, rather than continually tacking on battlegrounds and combat objectives and applauding them as elegant design.
Colin Brennan is the weekly writer of Anti-Aliased who knows people will scream about how much of a carebare he is in the comment boxes, just because they didn't read the whole article. When he's not writing here for Massively, he's rambling on his personal blog, The Experience Curve. If you want to message him, send him an e-mail at colin.brennan AT weblogsinc DOT com. You can also follow him on Twitter through Massively, or through his personal feed.
