Matching vs FFA

Daerim · 03-22-2010, 07:24 PM

Couple of things recently have piqued my interest in matching systems and their applications in MMO products. They've been getting more common for one, with games like Left 4 Dead and All Points Bulletin incorporating them. The problem, obviously, being that matching all but necessitates segregating the PvP population from the non-PvP population in some way, either via instancing in a larger world and the smaller, individual worlds that FPS-style games use or flagged-only PvP systems.

So here's a question for those of you that are still here: Would a matching system that pitted statistically comparable opponents against each other be preferable to random, open-world PvP and it's inherent imbalances?

I know that alot of you are married to open-world PvP and I agree that it has many advantages and can be very exciting, but some of the matching systems I've been seeing out there are really interesting. Such as matching an experienced, successful player against a group of less powerful or less successful players. All Points Bulletin is talking about doing this sort of thing, for example, alongside a flag-only PvP system.

Forsakens · 03-22-2010, 09:07 PM

are you a raaatard?

Advil01 · 03-23-2010, 11:08 AM

Daerim depends on the person. Match making has its advantages and disadvantages same with the open world side of things. Instances for me get boring because typically have a very sterile and predictable enviroment. The more predictable and recurring an enviroment the quicker it becomes boring and narrowed down. Open world stuff is less balanced and less likely to be a perectly fair fight but it has a more dynamic environment and thus to me making it far more interesting in the long term.

I can't say that any one is better just different. Some times I think an instance like fight would be fun and other times not. Although I think my most prolonged fun in a game was shadowbane so I would have to say I am less into instance stuff then dynamic open world stuff. That is provided the game allows for advantageous use of the environment like shadowbane did with wall fights, balwarks, teleporting etc.

Zoupzz · 03-23-2010, 01:35 PM

How am I going to PL behind a rock if my PL'er cant be a higher level then my newb!!!

Mourne · 03-23-2010, 04:40 PM

The problem with matching is that it kills any open world PvP. So, it's an all or nothing thing. When games attempt to have both open world PvP with an instanced PvP system, instanced always wins out and kills open world.

I personally hope they stick with open world with no instancing. I don't mind instances for PvE content, but not PvP.

Daerim · 03-23-2010, 06:08 PM

Providing incentive shouldn't be too hard. Putting Mines, for example, in the open world and not giving resource rewards in instances would provide incentive to get out in the world and kill things there.

However, as for matching, what got me on this is All Points Bulletin, who are doing some very interesting things with it. For instance, one of their production trailers includes a scenario where a handful of low level criminals is matched against a higher level law enforcer. They also talk about things like inviting more and more people into the conflict as things appear to be unbalanced. It looks like their opperating on a semi-open world or maybe an open world with flagged PvP, but I'm also not seeing any content that isn't PvP. On the other hand, the game also looks less like a traditional MMO and more like an evolution of the FPS genre, ditching lobbies in favor of in-game match making.

gremmlynn · 03-24-2010, 03:07 PM

To me, having set up matches adds an artificial element detracts from a game. It also tends to lead to rankings that also take away from the immersion of the game.

Daerim · 03-24-2010, 07:16 PM

What if it was integrated into the game world?

Standard fetch quests could be spiced up with a secondary quest handed out to gank and loot the first quester. NPC A wants 10 boar hides and sends Adventurer A out to get them. NPC B also wants 10 boar hides and sends Adventurer B to kill the people hired by his rival and take the hides for himself. So if NPC A hires a level 50 player, NPC B hires six level 30 players. Some abstract measure of effectiveness, including K/D ratio, gear "value", power selection, ect determines who is and is not even.

Alternately, you could go with a morality system and when people get too bad (or too good) the game contracts out quests to off the offending player, as opposed to teleporting in a guard with his halberd set to evaporate.

The problem being, of course, that in an open world there's no guarantee that the matching would stay even. I can think of a few ways to influence it, such as providing teleportation and convenient respawn only to those involved in the match-up, but nothing that would ultimately prevent people from bringing friends and messing it up. So something like this would have to serve in a mechanical environment that limits engagement to the matching system, thus the issue at hand.

All in all, I think All Points Bulletin is going to be an interesting game to watch for how successfully they pull off their PvP-only, matching system limited game design.

gremmlynn · 03-26-2010, 03:39 PM

That would still be rather artificial as it ignores politics. It would also be a complete PITA to balance unless the game was very cookie cutter.

03-22-2010, 07:24 PM	#1
Daerim Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Pete, FL	Matching vs FFA Couple of things recently have piqued my interest in matching systems and their applications in MMO products. They've been getting more common for one, with games like Left 4 Dead and All Points Bulletin incorporating them. The problem, obviously, being that matching all but necessitates segregating the PvP population from the non-PvP population in some way, either via instancing in a larger world and the smaller, individual worlds that FPS-style games use or flagged-only PvP systems. So here's a question for those of you that are still here: Would a matching system that pitted statistically comparable opponents against each other be preferable to random, open-world PvP and it's inherent imbalances? I know that alot of you are married to open-world PvP and I agree that it has many advantages and can be very exciting, but some of the matching systems I've been seeing out there are really interesting. Such as matching an experienced, successful player against a group of less powerful or less successful players. All Points Bulletin is talking about doing this sort of thing, for example, alongside a flag-only PvP system.

03-23-2010, 11:08 AM	#3
Advil01 Member Join Date: Jul 2006	Daerim depends on the person. Match making has its advantages and disadvantages same with the open world side of things. Instances for me get boring because typically have a very sterile and predictable enviroment. The more predictable and recurring an enviroment the quicker it becomes boring and narrowed down. Open world stuff is less balanced and less likely to be a perectly fair fight but it has a more dynamic environment and thus to me making it far more interesting in the long term. I can't say that any one is better just different. Some times I think an instance like fight would be fun and other times not. Although I think my most prolonged fun in a game was shadowbane so I would have to say I am less into instance stuff then dynamic open world stuff. That is provided the game allows for advantageous use of the environment like shadowbane did with wall fights, balwarks, teleporting etc. Last edited by Advil01; 03-23-2010 at 11:09 AM..

03-23-2010, 04:40 PM	#5
Mourne Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: San Antonio	The problem with matching is that it kills any open world PvP. So, it's an all or nothing thing. When games attempt to have both open world PvP with an instanced PvP system, instanced always wins out and kills open world. I personally hope they stick with open world with no instancing. I don't mind instances for PvE content, but not PvP. __________________ kekekekeke

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-22-2010, 09:07 PM	#2
Forsakens Member Join Date: Oct 2006	are you a raaatard?

03-23-2010, 01:35 PM	#4
Zoupzz Member Join Date: Mar 2007	How am I going to PL behind a rock if my PL'er cant be a higher level then my newb!!!

03-23-2010, 06:08 PM	#6
Daerim Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Pete, FL	Providing incentive shouldn't be too hard. Putting Mines, for example, in the open world and not giving resource rewards in instances would provide incentive to get out in the world and kill things there. However, as for matching, what got me on this is All Points Bulletin, who are doing some very interesting things with it. For instance, one of their production trailers includes a scenario where a handful of low level criminals is matched against a higher level law enforcer. They also talk about things like inviting more and more people into the conflict as things appear to be unbalanced. It looks like their opperating on a semi-open world or maybe an open world with flagged PvP, but I'm also not seeing any content that isn't PvP. On the other hand, the game also looks less like a traditional MMO and more like an evolution of the FPS genre, ditching lobbies in favor of in-game match making.

03-24-2010, 03:07 PM	#7
gremmlynn Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Madison, Wi	To me, having set up matches adds an artificial element detracts from a game. It also tends to lead to rankings that also take away from the immersion of the game.

03-24-2010, 07:16 PM	#8
Daerim Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Pete, FL	What if it was integrated into the game world? Standard fetch quests could be spiced up with a secondary quest handed out to gank and loot the first quester. NPC A wants 10 boar hides and sends Adventurer A out to get them. NPC B also wants 10 boar hides and sends Adventurer B to kill the people hired by his rival and take the hides for himself. So if NPC A hires a level 50 player, NPC B hires six level 30 players. Some abstract measure of effectiveness, including K/D ratio, gear "value", power selection, ect determines who is and is not even. Alternately, you could go with a morality system and when people get too bad (or too good) the game contracts out quests to off the offending player, as opposed to teleporting in a guard with his halberd set to evaporate. The problem being, of course, that in an open world there's no guarantee that the matching would stay even. I can think of a few ways to influence it, such as providing teleportation and convenient respawn only to those involved in the match-up, but nothing that would ultimately prevent people from bringing friends and messing it up. So something like this would have to serve in a mechanical environment that limits engagement to the matching system, thus the issue at hand. All in all, I think All Points Bulletin is going to be an interesting game to watch for how successfully they pull off their PvP-only, matching system limited game design.

03-26-2010, 03:39 PM	#9
gremmlynn Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Madison, Wi	That would still be rather artificial as it ignores politics. It would also be a complete PITA to balance unless the game was very cookie cutter.