Can PvP and PvE Coexist in the same game?

One of the concepts that I'm implementing in Cohorts is the coexistence of PvP and PvE on the same map.

The idea is that there are areas on the map that are considered "safe" from being directly attacked by enemy factions.  Other areas are designated PvP areas where players are free to attack their enemies at will. 

The idea is to create areas where players can safely go about their business while trying to advance their faction.  However, the best "loot" can only be gained by venturing off into areas where the players must also contend with other players.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this concept?  Do you like it, hate it or see any potential problems with it?

I know next to nothing about the game, much less its mechanics and finer points. That said, the potential for problems always exists. It inheres in the fact that human beings are the players, and they tend to be rather ingenuous. What about the environment? Is it controlled by players, also?

Ultimately, it's about risk allocation. Hostile intent should carry with it a certain degree of risk. Is it a safe environment or a dangerous one? I'm flying blind on your game, here.

How do you approach both risk and risk mitigation, within the confines of the game?

Ah yes, I suppose I am taking too much for granted that people will just know what I'm talking about.

In Cohorts players control characters and military units. The can group them into stacks and move them about the board. A stack can do a number of things, but the most common activities it will do are a) perform a quest and b) attack something (a village, a tower, a city, another stack, etc.)

Quests and Adventures are the way that characters and military units gain experience (and level up) and they are what moves the game's story along. When players engage other players in PvP combat, there is no XP gained but they can weaken their opposition and/or prevent them from completing quests and/or adventures.

The game map is divided up into hexes (provinces). Provinces are grouped into Baronies, which are grouped into Territories, which are grouped into Kingdoms. For the most part, provinces and baronies are the most functional level of map detail. In many cases, a player must travel to a particular province or barony to complete a quest. This is where the PvE and PvP components come in. If you have to travel outside of a PvE barony, you are available to be attacked.

Risk can be mitigated in a number of ways. Players can use either characters or agents to spy on areas of the map to determine if there are enemies about. They can move about with allied stacks, which produces strength in numbers (allies will automatically come to the aid of stacks under attack as long as they are in the same barony). Alternatively, the player can just make sure he's the baddest in the neighborhood so that nobody bothers them.

I've spent a great deal of time/effort to try and mitigate the potential for players to game the system. Over the years, I've seen lots of creative ways to bend the rules as needed. I've tried to take into account as many of these tactics as possible, but I'm sure players will find a way to improve their lot. If they do, I will decide if the method is a valid tactic or not. If it's valid, then there is no issue. If it's invalid and I can't fix it, games will have house rules to ban the tactic - or the tactic will be made public so that everyone that wants to use it can.

One of the things that I've seen over the years is that some player only want to play PvP. Other players only want to play PvE. Others, like myself, are happy to work in either realm. In a game like Cohorts, being able to play either style does a few things. First, it lets people play the style they most enjoy. Second, it allows players to join late into game and they can have some time to get their ducks in a row before they venture off into the big bad world. With top equipment, a new position can very quickly move up through the ranks and become a significant force in the game. I think that's an important aspect if a game that may last up to 3 years is going to still have players right up until the last turn.

One of the other features in Cohorts related to PvP is that the module designer can designate maximum "encounter levels" for stacks in a barony. What this means is, no stack can exceed the maximum level which prevents player-killers from camping out in a barony killing off newbies as they come in.

The implementation, as it is, is far from perfect however. A level 5 character carrying top gear can be a relative wrecking machine. Using this sort of tactic, a player could camp out and cause havoc. Players can fairly easily counter this though by sending in thieves to relieve these characters of the uber-gear. Even still though, it could be enough to decimate a player's position if they lose their 5 starting characters to somebody using this tactic.

[quote='Angerak' pid='136170' dateline='1473205875']
The implementation, as it is, is far from perfect however.  A level 5 character carrying top gear can be a relative wrecking machine.  Using this sort of tactic, a player could camp out and cause havoc.  Players can fairly easily counter this though by sending in thieves to relieve these characters of the uber-gear.  Even still though, it could be enough to decimate a player's position if they lose their 5 starting characters to somebody using this tactic.
[/quote]

It seems to me that both the environment, itself, and other players can be utilized to dissuade players from camping.

To camp habitually in the same place would likely result, I am inclined to think, in their camping point (not to mention the tales that such activity would generate) becoming known. How long would provincial authorities, barony authorities, territory authorities, or even kingdom authorities tolerate rampant crime in any given area of their jurisdiction? The longer that a player camps, the greater the percentage chance becomes that various corresponding authorities would become aware of it or take action against it - or both.

Persistent camping could generate rumors for other players to become aware of. The hunter could quickly become the hunted. Persistent camping could generate negative incentive, which is basically a chance for punishment of that dire activity. The in-game rule set and mechanics are what you use to keep player excesses of any sort in check. Sure, thieves can be used to steal equipment of the camping player, but perhaps they could get eaten by a bear, or captured by some NPC entity - or even player-controlled patrols. Again, details of what all is possible are lacking on my end. I am merely thinking aloud, here.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='136171' dateline='1473207162']
Persistent camping could generate rumors for other players to become aware of. The hunter could quickly become the hunted. Persistent camping could generate negative incentive, which is basically a chance for punishment of that dire activity. The in-game rule set and mechanics are what you use to keep player excesses of any sort in check. Sure, thieves can be used to steal equipment of the camping player, but perhaps they could get eaten by a bear, or captured by some NPC entity - or even player-controlled patrols. Again, details of what all is possible are lacking on my end. I am merely thinking aloud, here.
[/quote]

I'm not a big fan of the environment attacking players, unless that is the intended nature of the game.

What I do like in this though is the idea of NPC location disseminating rumors of hostilities in their lands.  The game system supports an event system that allows for exactly this sort of thing.  Who could/should get the rumor might be the tricky part though.  It could be a global event or it could be an event that goes out to all factions that are friendly with the barony where the camper is hanging out.  Or, it could even be a posting to the "hall of shame".  :)

The environment in which they play is non-hostile, then? A world with limited threat value. What is the point of the environment, then? For show? For building?

The environment provides resources to build their positions up. It fights back, but it doesn't initiate the combat.

Now, that's not to say that the environment has to be static. The game system supports an environment that will "attack on sight", but it's not the style of module I want to make.

The way the game system can be easily modified to match a module designers 'vision' is a big part of what I like about Cohort's design.

[quote='Angerak' pid='136174' dateline='1473209813']
The game system supports an environment that will "attack on sight", but it's not the style of module I want to make.
[/quote]

Attacking on sight isn't quite the same thing.

If a person isn't camping, then the environment would have a zero percent chance of attacking them. The player who is camping initiates the attack sequence by way of their chosen behavior. Furthermore, if you use a percentage based chance for the environment to generate a response (a response doesn't have to be an attack, per se, though it certainly could be depending upon the list of options that the environment is imbued with to react from), then the environment still might not attack a player who is camping.

The alternative is that the player who is choosing to camp and kill in a habitual manner may well be emboldened by the fact that the game, itself, turns a blind eye to camping behavior - which is a behavior of the player, rather than of the units being controlled.

I'll have to give that one some thought. I'm not sure what could constitute a response though. Consider a chess match where one player dominates the center of the board. The game itself shouldn't necessarily punish him for tactics. The player-behaviour I was describing is not the same as camping out on a spawn point and killing off players as they enter the game. But, then again ... maybe it is.

Also, it's important to keep in mind that these are typically team-based games. If somebody is being a dick, other teams are likely going to gang up on the player, and possibly his whole team. His team mates might not appreciate the pressure this brings down on them.

Like I said though, I'll give it some thought and try to figure out what responses might happen, other than attacking the player.

If you do not want players to engage in a particular kind of behavior in-game, then you either prohibit it, punish it, ignore it, facilitate it, or reward it. You have to decide which, if any, of those paths that you want to take, as a response to the behavior in question.

Players are not the game world. They are forces outside of the game world that seek to take actions within the game world by proxy - their characters, units, and armies. Players will naturally look for advantage. Players will naturally push the envelope. Players will naturally exploit opportunities. In chess, a player gets to take one action, and then the other player has opportunity to respond. In your game, how many actions can a player take, before the other player(s) can respond?

A bear doesn't actually have to attack and kill a player for camping (or for other undesirable activity). It could simply appear, and scare off the player's unit. The player's unit may lose something, a sword for example, in their bid to flee. They would get no say in whether to flee or not. You simply chalk it up to instinct. Whose instinct? Their instinct.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

In this example, the player is impacted in an incremental way, rather than in one fell swoop. If you use a percentage-based chance, then they might get away with their behavior, or they might not. It is a risk that they incur by way of choice of their actions that they seek to take (but are not guaranteed to succeed by your game world).

I'm just trying to give you some feedback, per your original posting in this thread.

This sort of feedback is really helpful. Most of Cohort's design has been in a vacuum, with very little input/critique from the outside world.

Some ideas, like an incremental threat assessment and/or random chance occurrence is not something I had considered. The game system isn't really geared to do that, but it's actually not a major change to implement it. The chance of being run off, for whatever reason, might increase each turn a player stays in a particular barony (unless they're allied with the barony's owner).

As I'm thinking about this, I can foresee some interesting implementation challenges - but interesting challenges are fun!

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='136177' dateline='1473255590']
In your game, how many actions can a player take, before the other player(s) can respond?
[/quote]

A player can move any/all of their playing pieces on any given turn.  What each piece can do depends on the type of piece and the skills (for characters and agents) the piece might have.  I fear that is an exceptionally vague answer, but a detailed answer might be too long for a single post.

I'll chime in, here...

This thread reminds me of Ultima Online, one of the first successful MMOs (and one of the only ones I played.) To balance the load they put players on different servers ("shards"), some of which had different rules. On some shards, there was basically no PvP. On others, there were PvP areas, for special events and for guild wars. When it started, the standard setup was for there to be no PvP in towns, but once you went out into the wilderness anyone could attack you.

This was frustrating for newbies, who were easy meat and had no gangs or guilds to help them out. But it also made venturing out into the wilderness genuinely dangerous and interesting! In effect, players were the most dangerous kind of wandering monster you could encounter out there. Traveling from one town to the next became a significant task, with different tactics. Taking the main road would be fast, but would mean near-certain ambush. Taking the back ways might avoid attackers, but could also mean getting cornered somewhere far away from help.

I was killed many times, including once where my attackers resurrected me on the spot, as a way of making up for stealing my valuables. And I finished many trips with a mad dash into civilized areas, just barely escaping from some gang of griefers. I had fun! But there were enough complaints and issues that they started shifting the rules. They set up a reputation system, so that if you kept killing people, then you'd be flagged as a renegade and others could not only attack you on site (wherever you went), but they'd earn a bounty. Stuff like that.

And there was a "masters shard" where PvP was wide open, where monsters from the wilderness areas routinely wandered into town, and where skills took 10x as long to increase. Succeeding (or even just surviving) on that shard carried a lot of street cred.

Ultima Online is an excellent analogy. The game mechanics are of course different, but the outcome where players get to pounce on other players to relieve them of their loot and equipment is the same. Or, in some cases, the attacks are a bit less aggressive and their designed to slow down the enemy and/or prevent them from completing quests or adventures in the area.

I hadn't really thought of the idea of bounties either. Again, I'm not sure how easy it would be to include that as a game mechanic, but it certainly adds some fun. hmm ... maybe making killing off other player's units gains "infamy" points. I'm not sure what to do with that, but it's a start.

My main concern in games with "safe zones" is the inevitable situation where griefers actually camp in the safe zone, rush out to put the hurt on someone en masse, and then retire back to the security of the safe zone. There is generally nothing you can do, and they will never submit to a "fair fight". I've seen it happen too many times in games with mixed PVP and PVE. Power bloc's build in the safe zones, boost each other, and wreak Holy Heck on everyone else (or, worse yet, perform nuisance attacks just tomscrew with you).

[quote='Blackwill' pid='136193' dateline='1473490327']
My main concern in games with "safe zones" is the inevitable situation where griefers actually camp in the safe zone, rush out to put the hurt on someone en masse, and then retire back to the security of the safe zone.
[/quote]

I've tried to take that problem into consideration in Cohorts.

If you leave the safe zone to attack somebody, you're going to have to spend the rest of the turn exposed and vulnerable to a counter attack.  You cannot move out, strike and run back under cover in the same turn.  A player can do what you're suggesting, but it takes quite a bit of effort.  They'd have to open a stack, teleport into the stack, make the attack and then run away.

This might still cause a problem, but if a player is willing to commit their precious resources (stacks and character actions) to conduct these sorts of raids, perhaps it's not so bad.  

Not to mention, it's possible to trap these attackers through the use of good offensive/defensive strategies:

1. you can have allied backup stacks nearby that will immediately come to you're aid if attacked,
2. you could cast spells on the potential escape path to either bar the player's ability to run away or slow them down enough that they end their turn in the PvP zone (where they can be counter attacked).
3. don't move through PvP zones where you are close enough for the attacker to run & hide in a safe zone.

All this being said, this could potentially be a real problem and it's one that I might not have considered closely enough.  As I continue to refine the game world, I'll try to mitigate how many places this sort of tactic might be used.