![]() ![]() If even they lean so far away from PvP and make up the smallest part of the market, why would anyone construct a game aimed at them? Myth Two: "Those statistics are wrong. The hobbyists are our bread and butter the subscription side of this industry cant survive without them right now. I would assume that these 87,000+ survey respondents are for the most part the hobbyists, the people most likely to play these games anyway. When players rate themselves in various combinations of the Bartle player styles, the Killer category remains sparsely chosen. Put another way, 79% of players rate themselves as primarily socializer, achiever or explorer players. That survey notes that as of October 20, 2001, only 21% of MUD/MMORPG players rate themselves as primarily killers, out of over 87,000 who have taken the survey (and note that surveys of less than 3000 people determine what shows we see on American TV, shows that are sometimes watched by tens of millions). One relevant online survey of persistent world RPG gaming preferences can be found at. It is indicative, however, that about 80% UOs game hours are now in the non-PvP areas of the game To be fair, institution of new content scenarios, improved customer service and an enhanced program to train new players had something to do with it, too. When they reined back the killers and instituted mirror lands, one PvP and one not, in late 1999 and early 2000, UOs subscriber base saw a resurgence. ![]() Of the several third-generation persistent world RPGs to be released since 1997, only one featured raw, unrestricted PvP as part of the main servers (Ultima Online). Some 80%+ of all game play in commercial persistent worlds is either non-PvP or fully consenting PvP (duels, etc.) The available evidence would suggest just the opposite about non-consenting or unrestricted PvP: Quite aside from the fact that the argument mixes two different markets and player demographics, which is making the mistake of the old "apples and oranges" assertion, my experience has been: Not when they have to pay money and invest time for it. As we used to say when we were arguing as kids, "Oh, yeah? Prove it." The premise here seems to be that, because so many first-person shooters with Internet capability are sold, there must be a huge market for PvP in persistent worlds. I had this discussion (again) recently with someone in charge of designing a fully PvP game and this hoary point came up - again. Myth One: "There are many hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of players who want PvP in general, and unrestricted PvP in specific." In a non-pay game, players are willing to put up with just about anything, mainly because its easy to walk away from something if you dont have to invest any money in it.Īnd when I use the word non-consenting in this context, it means simply that at least one party to the combat has no choice of whether or not to fight he/she is involved whether they will or no. Note that the following is relevant mainly to for-pay games and especially large-scale subscription games. ![]() Why it worked in that game would take some pages to relate and that makes it fodder for another column. Except once: Bartles MUD II, which can be counted as the for-pay online adventure/RPG game that started the industry. In fact, every time Ive seen non-consenting PvP tried in various forms, it has been a miserable failure. Ive been hearing that since about 1989 and have yet to see it actually work in a persistent world. ![]() Game after game touts itself in development as the answer to PvP, that they are the ones that will do it right first. In fine examples of the old saw, "Hope springs eternal," each new designer and/or development team is just positive they have the one true solution that makes non-consenting PvP work. The issue or, I should say, the several and various critical issues of Player versus Player combat in persistent world role-playing games is coming to the fore again, in all its contentious glory.įor some strange reason, this seems to be another area where persistent world developers and, especially, designers refuse to learn the lessons of past failures. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |