Better Player vs. Player in an improved arena

Got something on your mind about the project? This is the correct place for that.
Forum rules
This forum is for feature requests, content changes additions, anything not a Bug in the software.
Please report all bugs on the Support Forums
Inkweaver
Novice
Novice
Posts: 171
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 16:13

Better Player vs. Player in an improved arena

Post by Inkweaver » 27 May 2009, 22:53

One of the problems with the current arena is that is underground and not very visible to most players. I think that with a little bit of work and design the arena could become a main focus and a big draw for players.

First of all, I envision an aboveground arena, in a physical building that looks like a small colosseum. Bringing the arena aboveground, into the light of day makes it stand out more and encourages players to use it more.

This colosseum would have a front door through which both fighters and observers enter. On the inside is a hallway with two doors, one leading to ring side seating, the other to the ring itself.

Both of these doors lead to the same map, but to two distinctly separate portions of it. The map for the inside of the colosseum has an inner ring or square in which PvP can be turned on and off dynamically. The outer ring, where observers are seated has PvP turned off.

The ring itself, as I envision it is a relatively small arena with one end funnel shaped, for a purpose that I will explain later. This ring will have to be relatively small, both to keep the games exciting, and to allow observers, who may have low screen resolutions to see the entire ring from their seats in the stadium part of the colosseum.

Fighting in this colosseum is divided into rounds, with each round divided into three parts: target experience harvesting, betting, and PvP combat. I will now explain these three divisions in more detail.

The main problem with the current PvP is that no one wants to loose experience because their level 60 characters was killed by a level 90. In my envisioned system the experience from a player kill comes not from the killed player, but rather from an external experience source. Here’s how it works.

When a round starts the players are gathered in the main part of the arena, facing the funnel end. A game master, or colosseum worker spawns a large number of black scorpions, or another monster in the funnel end, and this monster horde advances on the players. During this time PvP is turned off in the arena.

The players in the arena must fight the monsters to kill them all off. All the experience from these monsters kills is put into a jackpot, hopefully measured on a dynamic sign that shows the experience jackpot for this round. Perhaps, all drops could also be put into the jackpot. This time allows both the players and the observers to see each players fighting style, strengths, and weaknesses.

When all the monsters are killed, or when the jackpot reaches a designated value, the survivors wait in the arena, healing while the observers bet.
Each observer in the audience can place a bet with a NPC bet holder. The bets are always a standard 100 gold. Each player in the arena has two funds associated with him: “player dies” bet fund, and “player lives” bet fund. Let me demonstrate with a hypothetical situation.

Players A,B,C,D have survived the monster attack and are waiting in the arena.

An observer in the audience plays a 100 gold bet that player A will survive. Two observers each place a 100 gold bet that player A will survive. There is now 100 gold in the “player A survives” fund and 200 gold in the “player A dies fund.”

After the bets are all placed the third section of the round begins. PvP is turned on in the arena, and the remaining players in the arena fight each other. When half of them have died, the remaining half get the jackpot of experience divided equally between them. In this way, the losers don’t loose any exp for fighting, just time, and perhaps money in the form of an entrance fee to fight. The winners get a nice chunk of exp for their efforts.

Now suppose that during the fighting Player A, previously betted on survives. In this case the 200 gold in the ‘player A dies’ fund is put into the ‘player A survives fund’ and the survives fund is distributed equally among the people who betted that Player A would survive. In this case it was just one person who bet that he would survive, so that person gets 300 gold back on his 100 gold bet.

If player A dies, then the gold in the player A survives fund is put into the player A dies fund, and the fund is distributed equally among those bet that Player A would die. So those two players that bet he would die would each get 150 gold back on their 100 gold bets.

What if no one had bet that player A would die and Player A survived? Then all the people who bet that he would survive would just get their money back. But if the reverse was true, and player A survived, but everyone bet that he would die, but no one bet that he would survive then all those people who bet that he would die, lose their money.

Who would get the money in the player A survives fund? I think it only makes sense that Player A would. Alternatively, the money could go into the jackpot for the next round, and would be distributed evenly among the survivors.

In this way, this system would make a fun environment both for players competing in the arena for experience, money, and drop jackpots. Also it would be exciting for observers to bet on their favorite players, and potentially make or loose money.

To keep things interesting the rounds would have to mixed up, for example a level 60 player fighting with his bare hands, against 10 newbies armed with daggers. I don’t know which way I would bet in a fight like that….

Also newbies could fight, with the experience source being a horde of maggots. :?

Anyway, requirements for this feature would be the ability to make one part of a map PvP, rather than the whole map, and the ability to turn PvP on and off in that area. Also, there would need to be some way to automate the spawning of the monsters, as well as adjusting the type of monster, so that a group of 10 newbies fighting in the arena would only have to fight maggots or plain scorpions, whereas high levels would have to fight black scorpions, snakes, grass snakes, etc.

The betting system probably wouldn't be too hard, but it would require some way of detecting whether a player was alive or dead, and also it would be necessary to detect when half of the players had died during PvP so that the round could end.

But anyway, that’s the idea and you are free to improve, implement, or criticize if you want. :D
User avatar
Fern
Peon
Peon
Posts: 61
Joined: 02 Jan 2009, 06:58

Re: Better Player vs. Player in an improved arena

Post by Fern » 28 May 2009, 20:56

You have introduced plenty of interesting ideas for the PvP
However, I think that there are some concerns that would have to be addressed.

If the PvP arena is so small.. how are a high level player against many lower level players supposed to fight in such a small space? Also, being an archer would probably be pretty useless in such a small area, and if we ever have area-of-effect attacks in the future it would be really hard to avoid hitting your comrades.

If the intention is to allow other players to watch the arena then maybe it can be done in other ways...
for example, allow people to enter the arena as "observers" (completely invisible players that can walk around, chat, but can't perform any attack/skill)

I think that each player should get a reward for each other player that he kills. What if some player just keeps running and hiding until there's only 1 wounded player left and get advantage over his wounded state to win the whole round? the player who fought bravely won't get any reward...

About the gambling, what's the reason for the asimmetry in player die/survive bets?
Perhaps when a player wins a bet there should be some percentage of the money going to the players who are fighting. For example, when a player dies, the 10% of his survive pot will go to his killer, and when he survives the 10% of his die pot will go to him. Also, this will encorage the fighters to beat down the people who have more bets on surviving, and thus make the game more interesting.

Another thing is that I don't think that the amount of money to bet should be fixed. Because it would be too much money for low levels and too few for high levels. I think that each player should be able to bet as much money as he wants, with perhaps a minimum, and get in return the amount of money from the opposite pot according to the proportion of his money in his pot.

For example..

- survive pot: 400
150 from Player A
200 from Player B
50 from Player C

- die pot: 200
200 from Player X

fight begins... and then the arena fighter... survives!!!
The fighter gets 20 from the die pot

And then the remaining 180 has to be shared..
Player A gets 150 + 67 (= 180*150/400)
Player B gets 200 + 90 (= 180*200/400)
Player B gets 50 + 22 (= 180*50/400)

Due to rounding there's 1 coin left that will be for the gambling company (in fact perhaps there should be a percentage for them :P)
Of course the amounts are small.. but I think that if there were scheduled fights every week with the best players of the server being popular, then I think that it could get profitable.
Inkweaver
Novice
Novice
Posts: 171
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 16:13

Re: Better Player vs. Player in an improved arena

Post by Inkweaver » 28 May 2009, 21:08

Those are great issues and suggestions that you make.

I agree about the arena size. A bigger arena would be better within reason, but too big would also be bad for reasons that you yourself mentioned. We don't want players to be able to run and hide to survive. A small arena would both make it easier to see what was going on, and it would also make hiding impossible.

But sure, a bigger arena would be good, if it was possible to allow observers to see without being in the arena itself.

You are also correct about fixed bets not being as good as real bets, I just figured that fixed bets would be easier to calculate.
User avatar
Doulos
Novice
Novice
Posts: 189
Joined: 26 Jan 2009, 18:23

Re: Better Player vs. Player in an improved arena

Post by Doulos » 28 May 2009, 21:21

I haven't read thru the whole post, but an idea comes to mind.

Keep the PVP cave that's currently available. Leave such a cave for hunting and seeking. Introduce the Colosseum idea for other purposes. No need to eliminate the current caves in favor of anything else.

:-)
Inkweaver
Novice
Novice
Posts: 171
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 16:13

Re: Better Player vs. Player in an improved arena

Post by Inkweaver » 28 May 2009, 21:45

Very true. I don't think that the current PvP area should be done away with, simply a new Colosseum introduced which would be much better because it would have a more structured, interesting approach to make PvP more fun and profitable.
User avatar
Jaxad0127
TMW Adviser
TMW Adviser
Posts: 4209
Joined: 01 Nov 2007, 18:35
Location: Internet

Re: Better Player vs. Player in an improved arena

Post by Jaxad0127 » 28 May 2009, 22:03

Using the coliseum for 1v1 or GvG would work. We could even do rankings.
Image
User avatar
Goku
Warrior
Warrior
Posts: 925
Joined: 15 Feb 2009, 01:57

Re: Better Player vs. Player in an improved arena

Post by Goku » 28 May 2009, 22:35

Omg a dev is considering expanding PvP! Someone write this down.. :P

The cave PvP should be kept and maybe have monsters added to it.
IGN - Trunks
Pixel Artist In Training
Work On Forest Armor
And Forest Monster
Inkweaver
Novice
Novice
Posts: 171
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 16:13

Re: Better Player vs. Player in an improved arena

Post by Inkweaver » 28 May 2009, 23:41

jaxad0127 wrote:Using the coliseum for 1v1 or GvG would work. We could even do rankings.
Cool! Things that would be needed would be artwork and some sort of code for the ranking, betting, etc. It would be a lot of work but I think it would be worth it.
User avatar
Crush
TMW Adviser
TMW Adviser
Posts: 8046
Joined: 25 Aug 2005, 17:08
Location: Germany

Re: Better Player vs. Player in an improved arena

Post by Crush » 29 May 2009, 00:01

I am not sure if the eAthena scripting language can do all this.
  • former Manasource Programmer
  • former TMW Pixel artist
  • NOT a game master

Please do not send me any inquiries regarding player accounts on TMW.


You might have heard a certain rumor about me. This rumor is completely false. You might also have heard the other rumor about me. This rumor is 100% accurate.
User avatar
feline monstrosity
Novice
Novice
Posts: 430
Joined: 27 Apr 2008, 15:08
Location: Wales, UK

Re: Better Player vs. Player in an improved arena

Post by feline monstrosity » 29 May 2009, 01:01

Is there any more complex PvP planned for TMWServ?
~Feline Monstrosity
Inkweaver
Novice
Novice
Posts: 171
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 16:13

Re: Better Player vs. Player in an improved arena

Post by Inkweaver » 29 May 2009, 01:10

Yeah, this would probably have to be a TMW server feature. It requires a lot of things that eAthena probably can't do, such as turning PvP on and off, and having one part of the map PvP but not the whole thing.
User avatar
Crush
TMW Adviser
TMW Adviser
Posts: 8046
Joined: 25 Aug 2005, 17:08
Location: Germany

Re: Better Player vs. Player in an improved arena

Post by Crush » 29 May 2009, 01:11

feline monstrosity wrote:Is there any more complex PvP planned for TMWServ?
Yes. Script bindings for manipulating PvP rules are planned.
  • former Manasource Programmer
  • former TMW Pixel artist
  • NOT a game master

Please do not send me any inquiries regarding player accounts on TMW.


You might have heard a certain rumor about me. This rumor is completely false. You might also have heard the other rumor about me. This rumor is 100% accurate.
User avatar
Jaxad0127
TMW Adviser
TMW Adviser
Posts: 4209
Joined: 01 Nov 2007, 18:35
Location: Internet

Re: Better Player vs. Player in an improved arena

Post by Jaxad0127 » 29 May 2009, 02:01

Everything you've described can be done with eAthena, though it will be a pain....

Maybe have 1v1 and Party vs Party. That will keep it easier. We can add Guild vs Guild when we support eAthena guilds.
Image
Inkweaver
Novice
Novice
Posts: 171
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 16:13

Re: Better Player vs. Player in an improved arena

Post by Inkweaver » 29 May 2009, 03:59

Having two options, 1v1 and party versus party, would keep things interesting, that's for sure.

So we know that it is a possibility. Of course, with all the other projects in the lineup, what would this rate as far as importance?

Do have a priority list somewhere, of what is most important to be worked on, and which projects are minor in comparison?

It would seem to me that TMW server and magic would be more important to get working first, than a feature such as this. But I was just wondering where it would stand in the project line up.
User avatar
Rotonen
TMW Adviser
TMW Adviser
Posts: 3154
Joined: 08 Sep 2004, 20:48
Location: Espoo, Finland

Re: Better Player vs. Player in an improved arena

Post by Rotonen » 29 May 2009, 10:27

jaxad0127 wrote:Using the coliseum for 1v1 or GvG would work. We could even do rankings.
For ranking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This message used to be meaningful.
Post Reply