Idea to allow players of all levels PVP together
By
abraxas,
Posted on: 2004-12-07 19:20 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
[ QUOTE ]
How many people reading this would object to being able to be on even footing for damage and accuracy against another hero and let the powers themselves decide the outcome?
[/ QUOTE ]
I personally wouldnt disagree with this. I think that even accuracy and damage that is level independent is a great idea, i have not read all the info on the PvP posts, biut i will say this, imho i think that a small level dependent bonus should come in to it for the higher level involved in the PvP, e.g.1% accuracy per level, but damage could be left alone, as enhancers take effect for the higher level player which the lowby just cant compare to slot wise. you could ignore this tho, as the same could be said for acc enhancers.
my scenario <ul type="square">[*]Plight Trawler comes up against a lvl 2 or 50 (whatever really, i dont care)[*]Plight Trawler short circuits[*]because they are even con PvP enemy with no lvl bonus at all they have no end[*] all my elec holds and drains and attacks pummel them to the ground and when i have no end myself i powersink their a55[*] i win one on one[/list]admittedly this is harder against people with 1. innate efenses like SR scrappers people with bubbles maybe and 2. mezzers, but then again if i dont get messed those min/lt/boss (chief mentalist) all at +1 dont seem to beat me, no nuke needed.
to sum up i like the comment at the top i quoted. i will definately get my training room patched up and ready to test PvP when its up there.
I dont want to see a system which allows for any excessive gankage!
((Formerly posting as KickAsterisk))
It comes down to this: For all the reasons previously stated, if PvP is purely consensual, than players will only accept challenges (or however it works) from players with characters even-con or lower compared to theirs. Likewise players will only challenge other players with characters who are even con to them or lower.
If it's SG consensual (IE my Hero SG versus your Villian SG) then SuperGroups will have no lower-level members, as they will either quit after being ambushed repeatedly by the high level members of their opponent group, won't be accepted if they are lower than the group "level" or will be power-leveled to 50 as a prerequisite for acceptance.
If it's a PvP zone system, where everyone in the zone "consents" to PvP, only Lvl 50's will end up there, as lower levels will just fall prey to higher level characters.
In any one of these scenarios,consensual PvP forces even-con contests between players, as these contests simply won't be fun otherwise. That means that I'm only going to get to challenge those players who happen to have a character at roughly the same level as mine. Those of us looking for some form of built-in even-con system, through either the monster-code or SK, or RSK, or something else, are looking for some way to open up the playing field so that anyone in the game can challenge anyone else, giving us an opportunity to see who the great players really are.
[b]Frost Lightning - lvl 50 Ele/Ice[/b]
Kick Asterisk - lvl 43 MA/SR
Frigid Bridget- lvl 20 Ice/Cold
GrammaRadiation lvl 20 Rad/Rad
Helena Ann Baskett lvl 29 Necro/Poisen
The Very Bad Seed lvl 6 Plant/Thorn
No, you don't understand pvp. It's not just some dueling contest. It's being able to deal with being sneak attacked. It's doing the sneak attacking. It's being attacked by characters who expose your weaknesses, and vice versa. It's not, "my character is designed to attack tanks and so I'll only accept duels with tanks. Aren't I a great pvp player!!" What a pathetic joke.
[ QUOTE ]
((Formerly posting as KickAsterisk))
It comes down to this: For all the reasons previously stated, if PvP is purely consensual, than players will only accept challenges (or however it works) from players with characters even-con or lower compared to theirs. Likewise players will only challenge other players with characters who are even con to them or lower.
If it's SG consensual (IE my Hero SG versus your Villian SG) then SuperGroups will have no lower-level members, as they will either quit after being ambushed repeatedly by the high level members of their opponent group, won't be accepted if they are lower than the group "level" or will be power-leveled to 50 as a prerequisite for acceptance.
If it's a PvP zone system, where everyone in the zone "consents" to PvP, only Lvl 50's will end up there, as lower levels will just fall prey to higher level characters.
In any one of these scenarios,consensual PvP forces even-con contests between players, as these contests simply won't be fun otherwise. That means that I'm only going to get to challenge those players who happen to have a character at roughly the same level as mine. Those of us looking for some form of built-in even-con system, through either the monster-code or SK, or RSK, or something else, are looking for some way to open up the playing field so that anyone in the game can challenge anyone else, giving us an opportunity to see who the great players really are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Some sort of even con system is the best way to avoid most problems that other games have with PvP, plus it must also remain consensual. Is it realistic? No but in an MMO you have to suspend what seems to make sense to appeal to as many as possible. Some people hate PvP, a great deal in fact, a great many others are casual PvPers they usually have a goal and DONT want to PvP at all till they reach that goal, then there are PvPers who find it challenging to PvP all the time.
There should be a way to somewhat even it out so all levels can PvP like the monster system give the higher level toon a level or two advatage so a level 50 fighting a level 2 the 50th would hit the 2 like a 4th level and the 2nd level would hit the 50th like a 48th. It gives the lower level a chance but not equal. Also have Overt/Covert, Overts are subject to PvP and can be switch on and off through the menu with a 15-30 second delay to avoid hit and run, but you normally can only duel by consent. A reward for the winner of any fight of an enhancement equal to the power of the opponent, to encorage more Overts. It isnt perfect but anything different is likely to be as disatorus as other games that have PvP.
[ QUOTE ]
So defence has an unfair advantage because in Scenario 1:
Hero 1 dies in two hits and Hero 2 needs to attack only 8 times.
and in Scenario 2:
Hero 3 dies in two hits and Hero 4 needs to attack only 8 times.
So.... the end result is identical, yet somehow this is hugely skewed in favour of defense?
[/ QUOTE ]
Notice the damage difference, it still takes two hits to kill hem simply because of the hitpoints. I should have picked a number for the hitpoints that made that point more obvious. If say for example the first heroes HP was 500 then you'd se that Hero 1 dies within less hits than hero 3.
[ QUOTE ]
((Formerly posting as KickAsterisk))
If it's a PvP zone system, where everyone in the zone "consents" to PvP, only Lvl 50's will end up there, as lower levels will just fall prey to higher level characters.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is how the system will work, from what the devs describe and how CoV is a stand-alone from CoH yet can link together is that there will be 'buffer' zones for PvP. This would be like a no-mans land where on either sides you have the hero and villain zones. A hero that wishes to engage in PvP will need to travel into this buffer zone to get into the villain populated zone. In essense the second you step into this no-mans land you have consented to PvP and if you want a real challenge then you go completely into the hero/villain zones.
This is very similar to how things work in games like Everquest as my wife explains it. Whereby the conflict mainly exists to control this buffer zone thereby allowing easier access to the opposing factions zones.
[ QUOTE ]
As for those who actually think it would be fun to sweep into the Atlas city training zones with a lvl 50 fire blaster and rain death on all the newbs - forget it. First off, the devs aren't foolish enough to allow it (I hope ), secondly, we really don't need players like that in the game. They're called griefers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Saddly it cannot be denied that its fun to obliterate another player, even I have to admit that when I play deathmatch games you can bet I had for the most powerful weapon possible and then head to the busiest area on the map. PvP in games where you have levels is the same, you had into the lowbie zones and kill/defeat not because it's a challenge but because its fun for you.
The real issue is that its NOT griefing, if you ever played SWG then you'd know that it was not uncommon to see large raiding parties heading into Theed to shoot declared Imperials/Rebels who didn't have much in the way of combat skills. I mean entertainers, merchants and crafters who simply declared so they could trade with their faction. In Everquest it was also common for such things to happen and with a proposed level-based PvP its perfectly within the rights for some level 50 to continally follow the same lower level hero/villian around a zone and kill them over and over making the poor players debt worse and worse but you'll be unable to report them for harrasment.
The devs are basically following the same template it seems as every other level based RPG with PvP content, yes it has problems however I think they're too afraid to try something new because it might delay the release of the PvP content.
[ QUOTE ]
No, you don't understand pvp. It's not just some dueling contest. It's being able to deal with being sneak attacked. It's doing the sneak attacking. It's being attacked by characters who expose your weaknesses, and vice versa. It's not, "my character is designed to attack tanks and so I'll only accept duels with tanks. Aren't I a great pvp player!!" What a pathetic joke.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whoa... easy there. I don't see where EightyGee's last post necessarily excludes sneak attacks or battles between characters that can expose each other's weaknesses. The third possibility she outlined was zone based PvP.
In fact in the second scenario, she's outlined what will happen if there is the possibility for common insta-kill sneak attacks. If it's SG consensual--like a "guild war" of sorts--she predicts that lower level characters will simply leave those supergroups after getting ganked repeatedly.
I don't know how you approach PvP or gaming in general, but for a number of us, we have limited liesure time. Logging in to play the part of a punching bag is very few people's idea of a good time, especially if their lifestyle affords only 10 or 15 hours a week to relax. I can enjoy a good game of chess, cribbage, softball, or bowling, even if I lose. Because the game is good and enjoyable. It becomes easy to say, "Winning isn't everything."
But when you create a stat-driven sense of entitlement (which is neither a ROLEPLAYINGgame nor a roleplayingGAME, but a nerdy and boring roleplayinggame stat crunch) you engender, in my opinion, a player culture where winning becomes everything. For myself, this sense of entitlement that a level 50 should always win hands down is like trying to play Monopoly with a 7 year old that says "Okay, but the Top Hat never has to pay rent and gets an extra $500 each turn. Okay?" Because it's my niece and it's cute, I'll grin and bear it. But will I seek that sort of gameplay out time and again? No way.
I support the idea of all players conning even to each other. I have a level 48 defender and several sub-20 alts. I think it would be a fair way to compete based on powers, slots, and skills while opening PvP to a much broader spectrum of players and strategies. I don't see any downside to it, and it sounds like fun to me.
[ QUOTE ]
Is it realistic? No but in an MMO you have to suspend what seems to make sense to appeal to as many as possible.
[/ QUOTE ]
Realism from the fictional sense can be created with a simple bit of logic when applied to the city of heroes universe. We all know that heroes in pragon city are registered and monitered, you cannot enter zones that you're security clearence doesn't allow. You need to prove yourself a capable hero because they allow you in. Equally so you're not allow to train in certain abilities/powers until certain points in your career. This could be explained by the fact more powerful abilties run a higher risk of damaging the cities, bystanders or killing the crimminals rather than defeating them. They moderate what you can do which also explains why heroes as they rise up the security level cause more damage, its because they're now allowed to use greater force to bring crimminals to justice since they have shown themselves to be experienced and dedicated to fair justice.
Villain organisations too have a similar system, they will never allow a supervillain they support to become too powerful for them to control so you need to prove that you're dedicated to their cause before they allow you to wield more of your powers. While the heroes are registered and required to control themselves as law enforcers the supervillains are controlled through the threats of the organisations they work for. A case of "Don't do that until we say you can... or else!"
Thus its easy to see that all heroes and villains can be seen as essentially equal. They all operate at the same level IF they break the rules which they are bound to. It would be simple for Paragon City to ammend the rules because of a huge rise in paranormal crime to allow heroes to dismiss their security level restrictions for the sake of protecting themselves and defeating a serious threat (ie. a super villain)
The villain organisations naturally would allow their cronies to use all of their strength if it means defeating yet another super hero.
This from a fictional 'realism' point of view it can be fairly justified to make all heroes and villains 'even con' to one another without it sounding silly.
The downside is there's no reason to advance your player. If you want a game like that, play Halo. This isn't Halo. To have some level five have any chance at all against a lvl 50 eliminates the whole idea of levels.
[ QUOTE ]
The downside is there's no reason to advance your player. If you want a game like that, play Halo. This isn't Halo. To have some level five have any chance at all against a lvl 50 eliminates the whole idea of levels.
[/ QUOTE ]
See, now you're just trolling.
No reason to advance? So I guess Stamina, Permahasten, all those power slots, SOs, etc are meaningless.
Are we playing the same game?
@Mindshadow
[ QUOTE ]
So the REAL question here isn't which system you like, the question is whether you actually enjoy challenging fights. If you want a challenge, then you want the levels statistically equalized. If you don't, well, then you probably should be fighting unintelligent mobs, not other players who will have no fun in a one-sided encounter.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are exactly right, so 5 stars for you 
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe there should be two different types of PvP zones. One for players to match their toons, regardless of skill, and another for players to match their skills, regardless of toon.
[/ QUOTE ]
This would work for me also...
[ QUOTE ]
And Nova enough with your labeling...its annoying. If you do want to get into the ridiculously ideological...then here:I accuse you of being classist, who offers nothing but divisiveness through overly broad and blind categorization. Someone who does not offer an argument based on criticism of an idea..but instead attacks the person personally. Althoug lol...calling someone elitist is pretty elitist yourself...ah..lol..i'm falling into the same trap..
[/ QUOTE ]
HeHeHe...And 5 stars for you because you have a sense of humor. Of course, many truths are often spoken in jest...Hmmmm 
[ QUOTE ]
Whoa... easy there. I don't see where EightyGee's last post necessarily excludes sneak attacks or battles between characters that can expose each other's weaknesses. The third possibility she outlined was zone based PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm with you on this also. I see PvP happening in 4 distinct area's
Arena's for hero vs hero or team vs team
Maybe HQ Danger Rooms for hero vs hero or team vs team also. I see no dept or rewards for these contests.
HQ raids, villains raiding Hero's HQ and vice versa for items of power.
Mission based PvP Hero vs villains and vice versa.
PvP Hazard zones between the area's that separate CoH from CoV these PvP Hazard zones could be Open, level restricted, or both
I see consensual being different for each type of play
Arena type or Danger Room type either one on one or team on team, a request must be sent and excepted or no PvP happens.
If HQ raids then super team must toggle raids excepts on or off with a 24 hour time delay.
If Mission based, the mission must be clearly mark PvP and upon entering the mission PvP is accepted and cannot be turn off with-out mission failed.
If Hazard zoned base PvP is accepted as soon as you enter the zone. There should never be a Non-PvP mission or story line issue that would require you to enter a PvP hazard zone.
So, I never hope to see any Open PvP in city zones..
That's what I see as consensual, but that is not enough. To get the largest community base interested into playing PvP I also think that we must level the playing field.
Suggestions:
First, level scaling to target for most PvP interactions, IE low level toons damage & to-hit scales up to target and high level toons damage & to-hit scales down to target making level and hit-points differences between like classes meaningless.
Second, For one on one fights (probably danger room only) or when both players or teams agree, for a really balance fight everyone is exampled to the lowers level player. (note this will not work if level difference is great)
This is what I want to see...
This was good too.
[ QUOTE ]
1) SCALING:either damage or accuracy or hitpoints..up or down; limited scaling within a limited level range or extensive scaling of all levels
2) Absolute LEVEL PARITY: complete negation of original status of combatants and equalization in terms of hit points/powers/etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There ARE things that can be done -- both to reduce ganking (I'm not promising it will ever completely go away) and allow a broader level range in PvP combat. Lower levels should have a chance to attack and defend themselves, even if it is hard.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lower levels should be able to put up a running fight, but not a true fight. They shouldn't be able to "hold their own" against someone +5 levels, in other words.
They should be able to do a bit of damage, nothing major, take 75% of their own HP, and run for their lives to a safe location where they regroup and summon allies.
The one thing I thought of, you could scale up or down END usage on a by-level basis. So, the 15th level hero challenging the 25th level villain could, in fact, shoot the 25th level villain for 150 HP of damage, but it would cost him 3x the normal Endurance.
He just couldn't shoot him a lot.
On the other hand, the 25th level villain could "toy" with the 15th level hero for as long as he felt it was amusing.
Since CoH checks to-hit and drains END before animation, this wouldn't be a huge problem. It would be weird, yes, but not impossible.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There ARE things that can be done -- both to reduce ganking (I'm not promising it will ever completely go away) and allow a broader level range in PvP combat. Lower levels should have a chance to attack and defend themselves, even if it is hard.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lower levels should be able to put up a running fight, but not a true fight. They shouldn't be able to "hold their own" against someone +5 levels, in other words.
They should be able to do a bit of damage, nothing major, take 75% of their own HP, and run for their lives to a safe location where they regroup and summon allies.
The one thing I thought of, you could scale up or down END usage on a by-level basis. So, the 15th level hero challenging the 25th level villain could, in fact, shoot the 25th level villain for 150 HP of damage, but it would cost him 3x the normal Endurance.
He just couldn't shoot him a lot.
On the other hand, the 25th level villain could "toy" with the 15th level hero for as long as he felt it was amusing.
[/ QUOTE ]
But as no one likes to be toyed with in a situation where they are powerless to defend themselves, no one will participate in this, so the effort to implement it would be wasted.
I mean how many times have you read a post where someone claimed to *like* being chain-mezzed?
A lot of people keep posting that their high-level toon should be able to pwn any toon 10 levels or more below them, but as has been pointed out, no one 10 levels below you is going to go anywhere near you or the PvP Zone you're in, so the point is moot.
As for PvP Free-For-All Zones? I can see it now, a bunch of villians sitting around waiting for the heroes to show up, but none of them ever do... Until they hit lvl 50, of course, at which point, let the villian ganking begin!!! It's not griefing because Hey, they're villians... Since when is it dishonorable for Superman to stop a bank robbery? It's gonna be worse than badge hunters in Perez Park.
And while they could certainly put min/max level caps on the PvP zones, all that does is further segment the population, and given that the players interested in PvP is likely to be some fraction of the overall player base, finding a villian to oppose within a narrow enough range to be worth your while could end up harder than LFG in Faultline at 4 in the morning.
[b]Frost Lightning - lvl 50 Ele/Ice[/b]
Kick Asterisk - lvl 43 MA/SR
Frigid Bridget- lvl 20 Ice/Cold
GrammaRadiation lvl 20 Rad/Rad
Helena Ann Baskett lvl 29 Necro/Poisen
The Very Bad Seed lvl 6 Plant/Thorn
[ QUOTE ]
I mean how many times have you read a post where someone claimed to *like* being chain-mezzed?
[/ QUOTE ]
If this was never posted make mine the first, i liked it when i needed to get my badge. Before the auto log feature was installed. I just found a lvl 50 sapper and turned Integration off and walked away...was kinda amusing actually..hehe
[ QUOTE ]
could end up harder than LFG in Faultline at 4 in the morning.
[/ QUOTE ]
I loved this line...
Could end up being harder than finding a "looking for group" in fault line at "4:00am" in the morning
That my friend would be hard indeed. 
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with scaling damage up or down based on target level is that you're basically denying the higher level player the just reward he's earned for leveling his character. If a level 10 shooting at a level 40 does 40th level damage, what's the point?
[/ QUOTE ]
Now that I'm calm, What's the point?
Fun, the point is Fun. It's no fun to be in a contest when you have no chance to win and since the majority of the players are low level that means the majority of the players will not have fun in your above example.
[ QUOTE ]
It's not a sence of entitlement. You can play the game for 15 years, if you roll an alt then it won't have anything more then any other lvl 1 character would have. No one is saying that time spent in a game should garner the player extra (or at least I'm not saying it) goodies. What I AM saying is level is an expression of skill in these types of games. A level 50 character has 'learned' more then a lvl 1 character on his first mission. Note I am speaking about the CHARACTER, not the person playing them. Remember that we are NOT playing ourselves, but instead are playing characters. So then, why in a fight would the lower level person have the same chance to hit as the higher level person? He hasn't 'learned' as much about fighting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, the higher level character will have learned more and therefore should have an advantage. So what's the problem allowing them to go at it if they both consent to it? It's all moot anyway since the combat in PvP will be consensual. If you don't want to fight someone 10 or 30 levels below you, simply don't consent to it. Really, if the 'monster-code' scenario were put into place and a bunch of level 15's thought they had a chance against a level 50 tanker, and ALL parties consented to a battle, what's the problem? Why are you opposed to allowing such a system?
At least if they build it in, people will have a choice.
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with scaling damage up or down based on target level is that you're basically denying the higher level player the just reward he's earned for leveling his character. If a level 10 shooting at a level 40 does 40th level damage, what's the point? They should not be on a equal footing. The 40th level player has presumably worked hard to earn his extra hp and his larger damage, so it is unfair to strip that from him. Scaling up the level 10's damage to the level 40's equivalent does just that.
PvP needs to be fun and something that doesn't get abusive. However, that doesn't mean a 1 on 1 fight has to be fair. If I decide to pick fistfight with a grizzly bear, well, I expect to lose. You can even give me a knife and I'll still expect to lose. That's just common sense. A level 10 should know that picking a fight with a level 40 is suicide. It should be common sense. At the same time the system needs checks and balances so the level 40 isn't deliberately hunting level 10's just so he can gank them.
There ARE things that can be done -- both to reduce ganking (I'm not promising it will ever completely go away) and allow a broader level range in PvP combat. Lower levels should have a chance to attack and defend themselves, even if it is hard. As we implement them we're going to test them internally and the ideas that survive that test will then move on to various stages of beta testing.
So at this point I won't say just what our plans are (because I like to test things first), but I just figured I'd shake the web here.
Lord Recluse
[/ QUOTE ]
Bangs head on table in frustration
Look, your customers are paying money now, month after month, in PvE because levels of detail are revealed to them as they play the game. They are revealed because they HAVE to level their avatar or they WILL die fighting that grizzly bear. This is the mechanism that keeps people paying money to play CoH. At some level this is recognised by the developers because levelling gets exponentially harder the more you advance your avatar. If it were a linear progression people would race through all the game content and then close their accounts. While avatar levels are NECESSARY to maximise profitability in a PvE world, it is NOT for PvP, as witnessed by World War II Online.
I would put it to you that were WWII online to implement a system that rewarded longer standing players by levelling their avatar through Private-Major-General with commensurate rewards they would effectively break their own game. They would end up with exactly what kills so many other fantasy RPG games, too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.
Do not make the mistake of bringing PvE thinking into a PvP world or you will repeat the mistakes of the past. You need mechanisms to make PvP fun across the board, not simply fun because you can one day grow to become the grizzly bear if you keep paying money to level your avatar.
The more you develop a PvP system that rewards levelling an avatar the more you will kill the desire for new blood to enter the PvP world. How many RPG PvP games have you seen die on the vine because only a core high level PvP crowd stays to hang around? It gets stale, fast. You dont need to reward the level 40, you need to reward the level 10, and not by simply making it easier for him to get to level 10 then it is from level 30 to 40.
Whatever your current thinking is on how broad a level range should be able to engage in reasonably equal PvP I suggest you had better double or triple it, because a good PvP environment is 10 times more important than personal rewards achieved within it, especially where those rewards may well kill the environment itself.
Excellent post Aussie, if a tad stressed.
You have hit the nail on the head. PvE advancement curves are all about stringing players gradually through the game content over an extended period of time, which is fine and dandy and works great for keeping the community addicted and happy.
But PvP is totally different. We WANT to fight each other - but without some kind of scaling mechanism, we will not be able to. If I WANT to fight my friend's lvl 40 fire tanker with my lvl 32 FF defender - I simply won't be able to do that in any meaningful way without a flat scaling mechanism.
If I DIDN'T want to fight him, I'd never have to because the system is concensual. Once you've determined that, it makes NO SENSE not to level the field between people who have consented - all you do is DENY them the opportunity to have a good fight. Everyone knows that player skill is not going to make up for a 5 lvl difference, much less a 25 lvl difference.
I agree with you that the insistance that lvl should be a factor in PvP combat is essentially meaningless and illogical. Players will very quickly learn that the only people they can fight are people of essentially their own level, and as such all you are doing is denying everyone - both High and Low - the opportunity to engage in contests of skill.
A foolish loss of a huge amount of fun playing opportunity for all of us if they don't eventually decide to put some kind of level scaling mechanism into CoV - it could even be OPTIONAL so those who really want to waste their time in statistically pre-determined contests may do so - more power to them, but I have no interest in that.
People need to realise that implementing a PvP system based on levels is bad mojo of the highest magnitude, the best PvP systems are skills based. D&D blew chunks for PvP, which is why in-party conflict between disparate level characters was a DMs dreaded nightmare. We have a fantastic skills system now that gives extra powers and enhancement to them as an avatar rises in levels yet somehow the developers still cant get over levels being intrinsically important in and off themselves. Please slap me and tell me this is 2004.
[ QUOTE ]
Better yet, "MentorBot here to enable YOU to save the day!"
[/ QUOTE ]
This just made my whole day.
It'll even help those L50s work on their sidekick badges!
@Mindshadow