Cryptic Studios: Levels, Gear and Skill Part 2

Geoff Tuffli, a Combat Systems Designer for Cryptic Studios, has posted the second in a series of articles about PvP over at Cryptic Studios Blog. Cryptic Studios is the developer of City of Heroes, and the upcoming title Marvel Universe Online. In this second article he addresses the issues of levels, gear, and skills, and their effect on PvP.

As touched on in the previous article in this series, modern MMORPGs are overwhelmingly based on a number of conventions, one of which is that a player's character gets better based on time played. Yes, there are some games such as Final Fantasy XI where a character can de-level, but even there the long-term trajectory is always one of more time leading to a better character. Generally this takes the form of levels first, and items secondarily.

In a (basically) non-competitive, cooperative PvE raid context, this causes relatively few problems as the PvE gameplay of most MMORPGs tightly controls access to specific dungeons or zones by character level. Increasingly better items follow naturally from the successful completion of progressively more difficult dungeons.

But in a competitive PvP context, this raises a number of challenges. Even players who have a high tolerance for being defeated by other players usually prefer to be defeated because they played more poorly than their opponent, not because the opponent had a purple Uber Demon-Slaying Sword of the Elements. In the first case, most players will feel that they had a measure of control over the outcome, rather than simply losing due to circumstance.

Level differentials play into this as well. Most PvE gameplay is gated by the existence of what sometimes are referred to as "combat mods." Not only does a level 20 mob have more hit points and does more damage than a level 10 mob, but if two characters, one level 15 and the other level 20, attack the level 20 mob, the mob will do more damage against the level 15 character than it does against the level 20 - even if it uses the same attack. Historically, this is done to control the flow of gameplay and to try to ensure that players have a logical aesthetic progression - characters fight kobolds and goblins before they fight trolls, and they fight trolls and ogres before they fight dragons.

While there are some benefits to combat mods in a PvE environment, in PvP this is just as frustrating as any itemization gap. Being ganked by someone against whom you have no chance of victory is ultimately a waste of both players' time, aside from a little empty ego-stroking on the part of the more powerful character.

So what if levels and items are simply removed, at least as acquired through time spent in game?

This certainly equalizes things and comprehensively reduces gameplay to player skill alone, but it severely damages one of the most successful mechanics for player retention in modern MMORPGs - steady improvement and achievement. Essentially, removing time-based progression also removes the single biggest carrot to keep people playing your game. If the game follows a non-subscription based model, perhaps this is tolerable. If your game is a subscription service, this will be a tough issue to work around.

If PvP gameplay needs to operate in the same world as more traditional PvE content, this makes for a serious disconnect. One option might be to simply divorce PvP levels or items from PvE, but if PvP levels or items actually impact gameplay, then this may result in the better players simply becoming even harder to beat.

In World of Warcraft, PvP and PvE items are differentiated both in what bonuses they provide; items awarded in PvP tend to favor Stamina bonuses, burst DPS, range and control mechanisms, while items awarded in PvE tend to favor aggro reduction mechanics and sustained DPS. Age of Conan, on the other hand, is currently promising to go even further and have separately tracked PvP and PvE levels.

If the performance gap between weak and strong players becomes too severe, your weaker players will stop playing, making for a thinner field of PvP. If the PvP levels or items don't directly impact gameplay, then will your players care enough to pursue them?

It has been frequently argued that players who prefer PvP represent a minority of the potential playerbase. But since rewards have been historically slanted in favor of PvE, it should come as no surprise that players have focused on the gameplay that leads to greater rewards.

One solution to a number of the above problems - a solution that is frequently overlooked by game designers - is rebalancing mechanics.

Rebalancing is any mechanic designed so that the more one side succeeds, the more difficult it becomes to maintain that success. Rewards should match this - as it becomes more difficult for the player's team to stay on top, the player gets commensurately better rewards. Set up properly, this means that even if levels, items, player skill or numbers are uneven, both sides should face an approximate challenge. A zerg of 20 characters beating up on five characters is in normal circumstances facing little challenge, but if those same five characters are able to take down even a few of the 20, that success should be recognized and rewarded for the achievement that it actually is.

Another approach is to look at rewards not as improving mathematically, but instead as lending greater tactical options and variety. Cosmetic rewards are very viable, but these need to be coupled with game-affecting rewards as well. Ideally, these rewards should not lead to a situation where the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. Guild Wars is a superb example of this, using both cosmetic rewards along with increased tactical options - new skills in Guild Wars are rarely objectively superior in mathematical effects, but they present new possible synergies with existing skills or open the door to entirely new tactical approaches.

Next time: Persistent versus instanced environments in PvP

You can see the first part of the article over at Cryptics Blog.