Rumpelstilzchen

Originally Posted by Solo_One

you get xp for pvp in champions online in exactly the way you are describing.

Originally Posted by Fury Flechette

tl;dr version:
1. PvP needs a revamp that allows it to take place in the context of the PvE game
2. PvP should be much more objective based, so it appeals to players that are primarily PvE
3. PvP rewards should be given to accomplishing objectives and not for killing opposition players

I've stepped into the post issue 12 PvP setting about four times since it was introduced. Without elaborating on the many reasons why I dislike it, let me just say that having a dominator attack me with flurry was both amusing and appalling at the same time.

I've seen a number of threads talking on how to change the mechanics of PvP, and while some of them make a lot of sense, I think the authors miss the reason why PvP remains so unpopular in this game. The focus shouldn't just be on the mechanics but why PvP is so isolated and divorced from the rest of the game.

PvP right now takes place in the Arena and in PvP zones. The Arena was the devs first implementation of PvP and it shows: limited options, really just one objective (kill the other side as much as possible) and no system that allows people to join matches already in place. One of the biggest problems of the arena is that in order to use it, you had get someone to fight you first.

PvP zones don't have that issue. It operates on the premise that you fight all comers from the other side, and yet it too has numerous problems. First, PvP zones really just don't fit thematically in this game. They make perfect sense in a game like World of Warcraft where you have two competing armies and territory that changes hands. PvP zones in this game don't make sense if you believe that the game world operates on similar standards of diplomacy and territorial sovereignty as the real world. Second, while there are mini games in PvP zones, they are mostly ignored for just killing other players or diverted to primarily PvE purposes (Shivans, nukes for PvE missions). Third, the PvP zones seem like a poorly tacked on feature of the "real" game as opposed to a seemless integration of the two worlds.

Let me elaborate on this last point a bit. When I first heard of PvP being announced in issue 4, I thought the devs would eventually figure out a way to seemlessly integrate PvP in the context of the PvE game. PvP should sometimes just happen as opposed of having to just look for it.

Here's a few scenarios I thought of with this concept in mind:

* Hero event broadcast: "Villains are attacking Steel Canyon". Up to 30 villains and 30 heroes can enter an instanced zone of Steel Canyon. The instanced zone takes the first 30 on each side that enter. Villains and heroes are auto sk'ed to level 25. Numerous objectives are on the map: rob the bank/stop the robbery, set/defuse the bombs, kidnap/rescue the hostages, vandalize/prevent vandalization. For every objective won by either side, that side wins PvP merits which can be used to purchase PvP recipes. The amount of PvP merits that can be won scales with the number of opposition participants, and are rewarded for *achieving each objective* and not for killing opposition players. Killing opposing players are a means not an ends.

* Villain event broadcast: "Heroes are assaulting the Fab in Grandville" Up to 30 heroes and 30 villains can enter an instanced zone of the Fab. Heroes and villains are auto sk'ed to level 50. Numerous objectives: defend/destroy the Fab power generator, release Longbow captives/prevent their rescue, download information from the Fab mainframe/prevent computer access. Just like the other scenario, every objective won by either side wins that side PvP merits.

* Parallel missions: Have a number of missions with an "Allow PvP combat" option. When this option is toggled, it allows any opposition faction player to enter that mission as a PvP opponent to stop that player from completing the mission. The goal for the protagonist will be accomplishing the mission, the goal for the antagonist will be to stop the protagonist anyway possible, including killing them. A few rules that would need to be added: missions will be timed at 15 minutes. Every time a player is killed, they receive an cumulative buff that makes them slightly harder to kill (+5% damage, +5% defense to all, etc.) This would ensure that even an outmatched player will eventually be on par. Both parties would have a certain number of gladiator based allies that they could deploy at certain points of the map to help them strategically. Once set, they behave as NPCs of the appropriate level. PvP merits would be awarded when either the protagonist achieves the objective or when time runs out.

So why would the above be more advantageous than the current implementation? Well, first I think it would be more popular for PvE players. With the emphasis on achieving the objectives versus just killing players for the sake of killing them, I think it would have more appeal. I also think that many PvE based builds would be more successful in getting objectives done and they would feel less obligated to spec into a build built solely to kill oppsition players. Second, such missions fit in the context of the PvE game. PvP would just happen as opposed of just having it occur in isolated parts of the game. Third, such a system allows for more role play opportunities, since it may allow for the advent of a arch nemesis type system. Appealing to PvE'ers and role players to a new PvP are IMO an important goal to any sort of revamp.