[Home] [Groups] - Message: [Prev in Group] [Next in Group]
18299: Re: [MUD-Dev] Summary of PvP attempts?
[Full Header] [Plain Text]
From: "Steve {Bloo} Daniels" <bloo@playnet.com>
Newsgroups: nu.kanga.list.mud-dev
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:27:32 -0500
References: [1]
Organization: Kanga.Nu
"Koster, Raph" wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Hook
>> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 3:57 PM
>> To: mud-dev@kanga.nu
>> Subject: [MUD-Dev] Summary of PvP attempts?
>> I'm curious if anyone has ever written a good survey of all the
>> different ways games have attempted to implement PvP on a large
>> scale while addressing the common complaints?
> Geographic: Team-based
> * Usually, teams are also geographically based
> * Often termed "whities vs darkies"
> * Danger increases as you move towards the other's territory
> * Territory is usually static though it doesn't have to be
> * Can feel futile as neither side can gain the upper hand
Regarding the last point, it can also feel like a *great* fight. In
all the fights I've had in years of air-combat sims, the ones I
remember most are when there was no winner. It's rare when you
don't enforce an even start.
> Shadowbane, Dark Ages of Camelot, MUME, Mortal Conquest: Team-based.
> UO: Reputation.
> Everquest, Asheron's Call: PK Switch.
> Genocide: Free.
> Many Dikus, proposed UO2 model: Zones.
> Many PvE muds: Safe
> etc
Though they are less on the role-playing, but high on the gaming
part, don't forget all of these "Team-based" PvP games with scales
ranging from ~200 to ~1000 simultaneous players/server:
PvP Air Sims: Air Warrior, WarBirds, Aces High
PvP Combined Arms: World War II Online </shameless plug>
-bloo
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev