PvP in EverQuest II: Variety in Game Identity Construction

The Battle over PvP: Variety in Game Identity Construction

Player versus Player combat (PvP) did not exist in EverQuest II when the game launched. Some players contented themselves with Player versus Environment gameplay (PvE) in which players battle AI controlled creatures, while others clamored for an expansion to the game bringing PvP. Needless to say, when Sony finally introduced PvP, players had opinions about how it should work. In this essay, I will look closely at one six-month thread in the PvP forums, describing the nature of the conversation and analyzing the motives and philosophies of the major opinion groups.

The thread started on March 7, 2006, when an unknown player named Obajad wrote his first forum post. It was a manifesto called, "Welcome to the jungle: The truth about PvP." Obajad had noticed a problem: different people understood PvP differently. What's to understand? Don't the developers set the rules? The player's job is simply to play within the rules set out by the developer, right? Well, as with any social space, norms hold the community together. But, what are these norms? Who decides them? How are they communicated? As Obajad puts it, "It would be nice if [players] were made to sign an agreement on what to expect when they roll on a PvP server." What happens when not everyone agrees? What happens is 215 posts and, for this researcher, an evening of great reading.

Obajad starts us off with several "Laws of the Jungle," some of which turn out to be more controversial than others. "Law of the Jungle #3: Nobody needs to be nerfed. Crying that you can't beat X class and they need to be nerfed doesn't mean you're right, it means you're an unskilled player who doesn't understand how to play his class." Ignoring the inflammatory tone as best I can, I processed what this comment means. Obajad has likely been reading the forums for some time, and disagrees with other players' complaints that the game is unbalanced. "Nerfing," by the way, is the process by which the developers make a character class weaker because of concerns that it is currently overpowered and therefore unfairly advantaged in competition with players of other classes. Obajad contends that the game should stay the way it is, and players should learn all of the advantages and disadvantages in the game in order to exploit them and become competitive.

However, firetoad points out that while, "Random, unsubstantiated nerf calls are wrong. Calls to fix glaringly obvious bugs are not." firetoad's language here is misleading. First of all, no one makes random calls for nerfing. Whenever someone calls for nerfing, that nerf is important to him. Second, and more importantly, what is a bug? Traditionally in software development, a bug is a mistake made by a programmer or designer. The old joke in software development is that when a customer calls up and says, "I found a bug in your software," the developer invariably responds, "It's not a bug, it's a feature." What makes that joke funny is that bugs are obviously bugs and therefore clearly not features. However, when it comes to game balancing and one character class is stronger than another class in a certain situation, who's to say that the imbalance is a "bug" and do not intentional design? Traditionally, those who do say it's a bug are those who feel disadvantaged. But the use of the word "bug" frames the target instantly in terms of a developer mistake that needs to be fixed, not a balancing issue that should be rethought or accepted as is. It contributes to animosity from players toward developers, leading to thoughts like "They've released a shoddy product and must not care about players." The theme here is one of design disagreement and misunderstanding. Some think the game should be this way, others that it should be that way -- that's the design disagreement. The misunderstanding generally comes from players who think there is one right way to the game to be and if it's not that way it must be broken. In general, forum posters do not acknowledge that the game might be good for certain kinds of players as is. There's a certain narcissism in thinking, "If the game isn't good for me, it's not good for anyone."

The disagreement over what the social norms are and should be continues with ganking. "Ganking," generally defined, is an unsportsmanlike kill in PvP. The unsportsmanlike nature of the kill could come from a level disparity, a larger group ganging up on a smaller group, or a kill when the target is obviously unprepared (resting, eating, chatting, away from keyboard). However, can any kill be unsportsmanlike? Is it just good strategy to fight when you are likely to win? Does glory come from the hard kill? EverQuest II is very clear in that it does not allow certain kinds of killing (e.g. anyone below level 10), but does reward both easy and hard kills. That should settle it, right? Of course not. Here are some examples of how the argument generally continues. Some context for the following quotes: other characters in the game are color-coded according to their level in relation to yours; green and blue are easy to you (lower than your level), yellow and red are hard.

1) "There's no skill involved in ganking greens. There's no challenge to it. So why do it? Why allow it? It's pointless and only makes the pvp server not fun."

2) "I will not go out hunting just to gank. It defeats the real point of pvp. Challenging combat, not effortless ganking. The ruleset should promote fun and fair battles”

3) "I sneer at people with titles, automatically wondering how many greens they ganked in groups to get that title."

Those are three snippets from separate posts by SniperKitty. Clearly, this player has strong views about what PvP should be. Unfortunately, the game design does not enforce these particular rules. So, SniperKitty has taken it upon him or herself to educate/cajole the community into different PvP behaviors. SniperKitty has also posted frequently requesting design changes to enforce these behaviors, but seems to be going unheeded. Not everyone agrees that etiquette should be grafted on top of the coded rules. Ydiss, for instance, says, "If you feel it's against some hidden code of conduct that killing greens and even blues is not what PVP is about then go right ahead [and abstain from killing them]." And JoePa worries that "reducing the grouping range and level limit will have a by-product of reduced PvP." There's a pragmatist for you. He'd rather have plenty of evidently acceptable PvP play than have fewer opportunities for "better" play. Halgrave wants to reduce ganking in the most clear-cut situations: "some rules are needed to make PvP a long-term success (Such as making it harder to farm noobs in the Adventure Yards)." Anaba tries to lure people to SniperKitty's side by promising that following the etiquette will be more fun (as opposed to simply morally right): "A lot of easy wins will never be as satisfying as the one win where your plans and tactics all function as devised and you win against the odds!" Bludger counters that immorality can be fun, too: "I get an adrenline rush when I see a player that is attackable." Cudadown wins the award for eloquence: "I am not a griefer. I just want my enemies to die." He or she maintains this identity by following a very particular etiquette: "Only things I will not do is camp spawn points or repeat kills nor will I cheat & exploit in any way." What's clear in all of these quotes is that certain behaviors make players feel badly about themselves or angry at others and that these fault lines are different from player to player. Cudadown doesn't seem to be trying to convince anyone else to follow her etiquette, but she feels badly when she kills someone repeatedly. So, she doesn't do it. That makes the game better for her. The trouble almost always arises when players expect the changes they've made in their own minds to translate to altered behavior in others. Case in point, lilNorton says, "I take joy in knowing I possibly ruined 15 peoples day because I nuked them in a video game.(I say this because I used to be that guy that would scream, shout, throw things etc.)" For some, it's Caring and Sharing (the pain).

I want to conclude by tying these ideas back to some of my research on identity. Online role-playing games, more than most kinds of games, survive because they allow players to create identities (avatars/characters/alter egos) that feel good to inhabit. Players invest in an identity and like to feel they are making progress in improving it. As long as they are improving that identity and it remains relevant to them, they derive pleasure from the game and are likely to continue playing. However, that initial understanding needs more nuance. Players don't construct identities around the same things. It may seem simple and intuitive to say players align their identities with their characters, but this isn't always true. From the PvP discussion, it is clear that some players' positive identities which they are working to cultivate center around their skill primarily and character secondarily. These players are more likely to be willing to give up a particular character and start a new one if it will help them increase their skill. These players tend to recommend against changing or nerfing anything in the game -- developers should just leave it to players to increase their skill by more deeply understanding the game as it currently stands. Other players invest primarily in a character, and would sooner quit the game than abandon their character to start a new one. If they made a choice of a character class at the beginning of the game that they later come to feel is underpowered, there are more likely to request the developers fix the "bug."

There's another struggle between players who construct their identities primarily as members of groups and players to feel competent through self-sufficiency. Those who like self-sufficiency want developers to implement classes that can "solo" -- progress through the game alone, whether the activity be PvP or PvE. They may not always choose to play alone, but they like to know they can. Unfortunately for these players, EverQuest II's PvP system was not designed this way. Obajad explains, "This isn't WoW. The EQ franchise is about the group experience, and how the classes work together, not just what they do by themselves." For other players, this is perfect. They can feel like a part of something bigger. They have witnesses to their accomplishments. If they're off alone and get ganked, it doesn't reflect on their competencies because they simply didn't have their group with them at the time.

As massively multiplayer online games attempt to encompass more and more genres within the same game, designers will do well to pay attention to the different ways players construct positive identities and provide gameplay support for at least the primary ways. In the case of the grouping-based EverQuest II, designers could easily add a dueling mode that normalized the different strengths and weaknesses of each class to provide a universally-fair, one-on-one fight. That might silence many players who are clamoring for changes to the existing PvP system – changes which would fundamentally undermined its collaborative nature. It might help the communities coexist and appreciate each other's different play styles, instead of always pointing the finger at those who play "incorrectly."

Works Cited:
"EverQuest 2 PVP Forum." Sony Online Entertainment. 29 Sept 2006 <http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=pvp&message.id=32353>.