A Non-PVPer's Solution To PVP
By
Acanous_Quietus,
Posted on: 2008-01-25 14:21 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no draw for the zones other than PVP. The non-PVP content of the PVP zones consists of badges, BB & WB mini-games (which PVPers do not play), and zone missions which are uniform and boring. If the majority of casual-players in the game are going to consider participating, there needs to be more reason to enter the zones and be exposed to it. The monolithic single-purpose mentality of the zones has failed. The model needs to be more along the lines of a mall food store where in someone walks by with other errands in mind and spontaneously thinks "I'd like to have...a Cinnabon @.@". A high level of traffic is critical for that kind of model. Beyond limiting things that actively repel players (see previous points), there needs to be content in the PVP zones which appeals to a broad section of the playerbase for its own sake
[/ QUOTE ]
No.
Remove PvE content from PvP zones altogether. Don't add more, don't make the current options more appealing.
Remove them.
No more missions of any kind.
Remove the XP and drops from any NPC in the zones.
If you want to make a new zone with PvE content that both sides can access, make it a purely PvE zone.
You can't make both sides happy by forcing them to interact.
[/ QUOTE ]
If the nukes and Shivans were taken out of the PvP zones, then I feel they should just be completely removed from the game or made significantly harder to get. Like on the level of the STF or LRSF.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the argument, and it's a valid one, can be made, "Why should I have to turn off broadcast, and potentially miss out on information I want/need to hear, because some people choose to be jerks?"
[/ QUOTE ]
Because in every known online software obscenity filters and the like are known to degrade the performance of the person suffering abuse while the jerk gets no penalty.
One of the more interesting things I have seen in PvP games recently is a vote option where a certain number of votes boots problem players from servers. Usually a hot key controls voting to make it simple. It works just like a time out that parents use for small children but placed on a game account .
Lets say there are 20 people in Bloody Bay running an event and I happily log in as Dronemeister and start teleporting people into debt. One person puts up a motion to boot me and its 20 yes and 1 no. I get a time based boot from Bloody Bay on Test Server based on my login.
You would be amazed how well people learn after several time outs. Someone shows up abusing the latest known game issues and *boot*. First obscene tirade about someone's mom and *boot* . This allows a group of players to remove troublemakers without the GMs and frees up the development staff from having to put in special code to deal with idiots.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, you log in Dronemeister and are generally regarded as a very good PVP-er. You take a few minutes to get on a good team and get started. You gank me (as fair as can be and as pure as driven snow). I say to my SG (or in general villain chat) "Hey, everyone vote to boot Dronemeister". Everyone clicks "Boot". You get ejected from the zone for no good reason.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was in a recent PvP game where someone tried that and myself and others blocked the vote. You seem to be suggesting that the PvP community in COX is incapable of behaving like adults or policing themselves if given a chance but yet somehow the PvE community is mature enough to use the boot mechanism without systemic abuse.
[/ QUOTE ]
You overestimate people's morality and sense of fair play.
I was a co-leader of a leading edge guild in EQ. I've seen people do absolutely wretched things to each other just because they can. I'm not talking about 2 or 3. I'm talking about a concerted effort of 50-70 people to force non-guildmates to fail, even though it didn't gain them anything. And that was in just PVE.
I've seen PVPers go to great lengths and trouble to cause others grief. Again, not one or two people, but 30-40 at a time.
PVE-ers are no better or worse than PVPers. But, the example you gave was a PVP-boot system. I simply followed your precedent, and following the rules you laid out.
In short, if a system can be exploited, it will be exploited. Now, every little in MMO systems can't be exploited in one fashion or another, and sometimes it's not worth the effort to stop it.
But when it comes to one group of people being able to directly and adversely effect someone else's enjoyment of the game through an exploit, that should be curbed, I don't care if you're talking about PVP or PVE.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you for giving the viewpoint from someone who along with their guild would be the first people kicked. I am also interested in hearing opinions from people who would not be one of the people being removed.
I think something like that would be a good idea as long as there is strict enforcement of rules if a group of people use it to grief.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the argument, and it's a valid one, can be made, "Why should I have to turn off broadcast, and potentially miss out on information I want/need to hear, because some people choose to be jerks?"
[/ QUOTE ]
Because in every known online software obscenity filters and the like are known to degrade the performance of the person suffering abuse while the jerk gets no penalty.
One of the more interesting things I have seen in PvP games recently is a vote option where a certain number of votes boots problem players from servers. Usually a hot key controls voting to make it simple. It works just like a time out that parents use for small children but placed on a game account .
Lets say there are 20 people in Bloody Bay running an event and I happily log in as Dronemeister and start teleporting people into debt. One person puts up a motion to boot me and its 20 yes and 1 no. I get a time based boot from Bloody Bay on Test Server based on my login.
You would be amazed how well people learn after several time outs. Someone shows up abusing the latest known game issues and *boot*. First obscene tirade about someone's mom and *boot* . This allows a group of players to remove troublemakers without the GMs and frees up the development staff from having to put in special code to deal with idiots.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, you log in Dronemeister and are generally regarded as a very good PVP-er. You take a few minutes to get on a good team and get started. You gank me (as fair as can be and as pure as driven snow). I say to my SG (or in general villain chat) "Hey, everyone vote to boot Dronemeister". Everyone clicks "Boot". You get ejected from the zone for no good reason.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was in a recent PvP game where someone tried that and myself and others blocked the vote. You seem to be suggesting that the PvP community in COX is incapable of behaving like adults or policing themselves if given a chance but yet somehow the PvE community is mature enough to use the boot mechanism without systemic abuse.
[/ QUOTE ]
You overestimate people's morality and sense of fair play.
I was a co-leader of a leading edge guild in EQ. I've seen people do absolutely wretched things to each other just because they can. I'm not talking about 2 or 3. I'm talking about a concerted effort of 50-70 people to force non-guildmates to fail, even though it didn't gain them anything. And that was in just PVE.
I've seen PVPers go to great lengths and trouble to cause others grief. Again, not one or two people, but 30-40 at a time.
PVE-ers are no better or worse than PVPers. But, the example you gave was a PVP-boot system. I simply followed your precedent, and following the rules you laid out.
In short, if a system can be exploited, it will be exploited. Now, every little in MMO systems can't be exploited in one fashion or another, and sometimes it's not worth the effort to stop it.
But when it comes to one group of people being able to directly and adversely effect someone else's enjoyment of the game through an exploit, that should be curbed, I don't care if you're talking about PVP or PVE.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you for giving the viewpoint from someone who along with their guild would be the first people kicked. I am also interested in hearing opinions from people who would not be one of the people being removed.
[/ QUOTE ]
And thank you for jumping to baseless conclusions. My guild never did anything of the kind. Doesn't mean I didn't see it happen.
Funny how you just made that assumption, though, isn't it?
[ QUOTE ]
I think something like that would be a good idea as long as there is strict enforcement of rules if a group of people use it to grief.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's great, for a small FPS server type setting, largely because the people playing on the server arent' paying for the priviledge.
But who's going to sit around and watch the boot system? Who is going to determine if something's being used to grief, or if there's a legitimate complaint?
Look at how pwople are already concerned about the /ignore_spammer thing. This is like /ignore_spammer times 10.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no draw for the zones other than PVP. The non-PVP content of the PVP zones consists of badges, BB & WB mini-games (which PVPers do not play), and zone missions which are uniform and boring. If the majority of casual-players in the game are going to consider participating, there needs to be more reason to enter the zones and be exposed to it. The monolithic single-purpose mentality of the zones has failed. The model needs to be more along the lines of a mall food store where in someone walks by with other errands in mind and spontaneously thinks "I'd like to have...a Cinnabon @.@". A high level of traffic is critical for that kind of model. Beyond limiting things that actively repel players (see previous points), there needs to be content in the PVP zones which appeals to a broad section of the playerbase for its own sake
[/ QUOTE ]
No.
Remove PvE content from PvP zones altogether. Don't add more, don't make the current options more appealing.
Remove them.
No more missions of any kind.
Remove the XP and drops from any NPC in the zones.
If you want to make a new zone with PvE content that both sides can access, make it a purely PvE zone.
You can't make both sides happy by forcing them to interact.
[/ QUOTE ]
100% full agreement. Keep PVP out of PVE and take PVE out of PVP.
IF PVP is a viable, legitimate playstyle, it should be able to stand on it's own merit rather than having to force (OK, I agree people aren't forced, but that's the perception) or bribe players into PVP.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are half right. PvP will never enter PvE zones.
You other will NEVER happen. The PvP zones will dry up, and even less people will go to those zones. That is the exact opposite of what is needed. The question is, how do you get more people interested in going to the PvP zones, and HB nailed it directly.
I think it would be neat, and I HB touched on this in is revamp of sirens call mini games, to have an area in the PvP maps, call it a war room, where you can be put into a que to join a PvP battle in an instanced map, and give each zone their own unique game in this fashion and add more PvE into the zones. In addition, while in the instanced games, make it so villians can't see hero broadcast and vice versa for two reasons. First, nobody can taunt. Secondly, you can use the broadcast for calling out strategies.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think something like that would be a good idea as long as there is strict enforcement of rules if a group of people use it to grief.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's great, for a small FPS server type setting, largely because the people playing on the server arent' paying for the priviledge.
But who's going to sit around and watch the boot system? Who is going to determine if something's being used to grief, or if there's a legitimate complaint?
Look at how pwople are already concerned about the /ignore_spammer thing. This is like /ignore_spammer times 10.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why would they add something like this? You can already ignore_spammer people in pvp zones, and it sends a petition along with the chat log to the dev's. If you start allowing the fate of other players and their playstyle fall into the hands of other players, you will have disasterous outcomes. Just reading some of these threads makes me believe that the CoH community would be lose 1/4 of it's players because they farm or ask for fillers.
[ QUOTE ]
You overestimate people's morality and sense of fair play.
...
PVE-ers are no better or worse than PVPers. But, the example you gave was a PVP-boot system. I simply followed your precedent, and following the rules you laid out.
In short, if a system can be exploited, it will be exploited. Now, every little in MMO systems can't be exploited in one fashion or another, and sometimes it's not worth the effort to stop it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Very true, Luck charms.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No.
Remove PvE content from PvP zones altogether. Don't add more, don't make the current options more appealing.
Remove them.
No more missions of any kind.
Remove the XP and drops from any NPC in the zones.
If you want to make a new zone with PvE content that both sides can access, make it a purely PvE zone.
You can't make both sides happy by forcing them to interact.
[/ QUOTE ]
100% full agreement. Keep PVP out of PVE and take PVE out of PVP.
IF PVP is a viable, legitimate playstyle, it should be able to stand on it's own merit rather than having to force (OK, I agree people aren't forced, but that's the perception) or bribe players into PVP.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, two related points so I'll take them together.
To Faolon:
I would agree with you entirely on the idea that you "can't make both sides happy by forcing them to interact". And while "PVEers" and "PVPers" are not taxonomically distinct animals (despite copious commentary on their differing mating habits in BB broadcast chat), there is a 'split' in the game resulting in two "sides". PVP is almost a separate game because of everything I listed in the original post. With virtually no one happy with this schizoid condition, there are two options. You can remove the friction points when the two different types of play are occuring in the same locale, or you can go ahead and make the separation complete so they do not interact at all. That latter would eliminate the unhappiness, but it would also mean cutting the PVP portion of the game loose without any support. For a game-element that is already struggling, this is tantamount to a developmental death sentence. Which brings us to...
To Leatherneck:
...the fact that PVP is on development-priority life-support. Anyone can go and see the small zone-populations in the PVP-zones or hear the annecdotes about just how small the subscriber-base involved with PVP is. The lack of major development activity since Issue 7 with Recluse's Victory also speaks volumes. The clincher if any was needed is Ex Libris' focused and high profile interaction with the PVP community. (Activty which she has had to defend from protests that she should spend time on "more worthwhile" areas of the game by saying she "goes where the bleeding is".
That's the subtext for the entirety of the conversation of this thread: is PVP in CoX worth spending resources on to try and save?
"No" is an honestly valid opinion. It was actually my opinion to let PVP sink on its own until just recently. I'd seen plenty in two years that convinced me CoX PVP contributed far less in subscription-revenue, forum-conversation, and game-experience terms than it consumed. The final nail was the "Go die" post and its ilk during the Scrambled Eggs incident of i11 Beta. (If you don't know what I'm referring to there, it's too asinine for you to spend time in your life learning about and I won't entertain a rehash of that conversation here.)
The NCSoft buyout in the midst of i11 Beta changed things. Firstly, that was a fantastic Beta. Every Dev that we could see was right in there with us, grease up to their elbows, and I swear BaB's ankles hurt from being stuck in that oil lamp: every time someone said "I wish that...", it happened. Lighthouse and Ex Libris were extremely involved and responsive. I came away with the idea that player opinions would indeed be given more than lip-service attention and a well reasoned argument could effect the direction of the game.
The buyout itself and decision to "reinvest" in CoX convinced me there was a long-term future for City of Heroes. Before the general mood seemed that it might fall by the wayside when MUO came out. Now if CoX ever became too long in the tooth to continue growing, there was nothing standing in the way of a re-engined CoH2.
The migration en masse of the Developers to NCSoft showed me that the people working behind the scenes love this game. I'm sure the employment offer was "competitive", but no one had to take it. Still, the entire team wanted to keep working on CoX!
This is a game crafted by people who really care about it, that has a bright future outlook, and I feel personally invested in its success and my experience with the game.*
With that state of mind, if there is an ill portion of the game and a way to help it while helping the rest of the game at the same time, I think it's worth looking for. I can't argue if you say you don't want to see more resources poured into PVP with little chance of return. I will argue that if the resources and technical capabilities are present to do what I outline in the Original Post, it would work.
(* To any powers that be which might read this: yes that does mean the heavy interaction and feedback is worth it and your community team is doing its job.)
Regardless, it's a pertinent conversation topic and one that ought to be out in the open. At some point, a decision has to be made whether to keep supporting a non-performing game element or cut it loose. I have no idea when such a decision might be taken, but the community was put on notice very recently that: The Clock. Is. Ticking.
Edit: edited for formatting.
[ QUOTE ]
I really like this idea of flagging. L2 has something similar, as does SWG. However, as Xury said,...
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, I have no idea what it was Xury was reading when he raised his objections, but it wasn't my Original Post. Case in point being this concern about PVEers buffing RV AVs. As I've stated *counts on fingers*...four times: the ideas laid out in the original post do not allow for that to happen.
*Drives a stake through the meme, sets in on fire, and feeds it to the Hamidon* "And stay dead! @_@"
I was very conscious of ways a player-settable PVP flag might be abused in a mixed population setting and addressed each that I saw for the different specific environment. I know it's a long post, I shortened it as much as I could and still be comprehensive. If you're unclear on something, please go back and read both Original Posts and then raise a question if you think a point doesn't make sense.
Some great ideas here, H_B. Read the whole first post, read the BB and SC suggestions, skimmed the WB & RV suggestions since I never go to those zones and my eyes were getting tired. 
Thoughts:
Flagging. I both like and dislike the idea.
CON: You can have your enemies walk right up to you and go nyah nyah nyah, and there's nothing you can do about it. In that sense, it is a severe, severe immersion killer.
PRO: But in a way, it helps support good RP, especially in combination with your "challenge" system. I've always been deeply disappointed by the fact that you can't have good super-soliloquys with other players, because by the time you get close enough to talk to them, you better be mashing buttons to try to beat them, or they'll certainly take advantage. Under your system, you could approach your enemies (with PvP off), make your grandiose taunts, threaten the water supply, demand justice, whatever, then activate the challenge mode and start the battle. That would be great.
So basically, from an immersion point of view, if people used it the right way, it would be awesome. But if people acted like jerks, it would kill immersion completely. And since we know how much we can rely on people not being jerks ... well, you see where I am going with this sentence.
My immediate thought about your Bloody Bay plan was that it is utterly and completely griefable. I like the theory, but again, it relies on players not exploiting. Here is what I mean. Say there are 5 villains and 5 heroes in the zone. The villains are alerted that a hero (or group of heroes) is going for the PvP version of meteor collection. What will happen? 4 villains will flag PvP on and go after them. The 5th villain will leave PvP off and begin the horribly punishing PvE version of meteor hunting, then go find the heroes and follow them around. When a meteor is approached, the EBs etc. will spawn, making it impossible for the heroes to get the meteors while also under villain attack.
Really, the only way I see having different spawns for PvP and PvE work would be to have two different versions of the zone. Which I would be fine with - I'd like to see more challenge in getting a Shivan Shard - but this would do nothing to address PvP's popularity, which is what this whole thread is about.
Looks like you have a similar plan for Warburg, which suffers from the same problems.
And actually, you say a few times that getting a nuke or Shivan should always require a big team and be a huge undertaking. I agree that rich rewards should only go with big risks, but I am a BIG opponent of "forced teaming". If it were up to me, nukes and Shivans would be nerfed instead. I'd vastly prefer that to adding more "team-only" content.
Siren's Call. SC is the only PvP zone that I have so far actually enjoyed PvPing in. During the latest Winter Event, I wanted to get all the skiing badges for my 50 villain, who has no jumping powers and no pocket kin. Instead of respeccing in and out of SJ, I decided that I would singlehandedly take back SC from the heroes and buy the jump temp power. To be sure, I spent most of my time in the zone during off hours, helping the NPCs win, but since I had to win some 100 battles to beat the zone, I spent a LOT of time in there and some actual fun PvP happened, teamed with strangers, 1 on 1, every which way.
Now that you have my background, you may be able to see how your suggestions would throw a wrench into the only real PvP environment I've enjoyed in the game. Helping Arachnos fight Longbow was fun, and having a big wall of NPCs around made it a lot tougher for some hero to zip in, gank me, zip out. It made the battles real BATTLES. The NPCs were strategic obstacles, used by both sides. Under your flagging system, though, people who have PvP off can still indirectly PvP ... by killing NPC enemies and buffing NPC friends. A PvP-off Defender for example would be able to help Longbow take over the neighborhoods much more easily if the villains couldn't directly retaliate. You see where I'm going with this.
I'm not saying that your system wouldn't be better overall for the PvP world - I like your system a lot and I bet it would be much healthier for the game. But I would be sad to see the death of the one PvP gameplay style I actually really liked - essentially being an Arachnos general leading my little army against the good guys.
These thoughts are incomplete, and again, I haven't read the whole thread, but there's only so much time & energy I can invest at once. Subscribing, and I'll be back to look things over, read any replies to me, and add more thoughts.
Best of luck with the project - I too would love to see PvP revamped to make it actually fun for a majority.
One other thought I want to throw out that has nothing to do with the OP, but which I've always always always wanted changed: the 30 second timer was never a good idea. Your PvP flag should be off whenever you are in your side's base, and on whenever you leave it. OK, don't mean to derail, just had to say it.
excuse me Mr. Superman sir this is a pvp zone... maybe you should change your tights so you can fight here.... Ok first off this is stupid. Before dealing with any other idea the fact that you want to have a pve/pvp mode should have warned you to take your meds. Talk about a open invitation to abuse. FA/EM tanker in pve farm mishs to fuel the money to my FA/EM pvp tanker which happens to be the same toon ?
Without coloring my personal thoughts about stalkers ( and the people that claim you need skill to play one ) Flagging nulls out their effectiveness.
Perhaps a pvp learning zone would be a option but the truth is pvp is a small part of the game as a whole. PvPers are proud of the work involved in making a pvp toon. I like many others had to take my lumps and ask questions and take the ridicule while learning and I still have a long way to go.. I personally hope the Devs file this idea in the also ran dept.
If you wanna dummy it down or make it cheap and easy then this is the idea to go with. Personally implementing the duel modes would not only make me retch I would have to cancel my subscription and go play elf bowling.
[ QUOTE ]
PvPers are proud of the work involved in making a pvp toon. I like many others had to take my lumps and ask questions and take the ridicule while learning and I still have a long way to go.. I personally hope the Devs file this idea in the also ran dept.
If you wanna dummy it down or make it cheap and easy then this is the idea to go with. Personally implementing the duel modes would not only make me retch I would have to cancel my subscription and go play elf bowling.
[/ QUOTE ]
"I got treated like crap, and now I want to treat people like crap in return. If you make it so that when I treat people like crap, they can PvP and still exclude me then I will not play this game anymore."
Great argument. Aces.
[ QUOTE ]
excuse me Mr. Superman sir this is a pvp zone... maybe you should change your tights so you can fight here.... Ok first off this is stupid. Before dealing with any other idea the fact that you want to have a pve/pvp mode should have warned you to take your meds. Talk about a open invitation to abuse. FA/EM tanker in pve farm mishs to fuel the money to my FA/EM pvp tanker which happens to be the same toon ?
Without coloring my personal thoughts about stalkers ( and the people that claim you need skill to play one ) Flagging nulls out their effectiveness.
Perhaps a pvp learning zone would be a option but the truth is pvp is a small part of the game as a whole. PvPers are proud of the work involved in making a pvp toon. I like many others had to take my lumps and ask questions and take the ridicule while learning and I still have a long way to go.. I personally hope the Devs file this idea in the also ran dept.
If you wanna dummy it down or make it cheap and easy then this is the idea to go with. Personally implementing the duel modes would not only make me retch I would have to cancel my subscription and go play elf bowling.
[/ QUOTE ]
a pvp-er that thinks that stalkers are just easy mode?
noob...
anyways... i agree with most of what you said, but it could have been said better.
[ QUOTE ]
excuse me Mr. Superman sir this is a pvp zone... maybe you should change your tights so you can fight here.... Ok first off this is stupid. Before dealing with any other idea the fact that you want to have a pve/pvp mode should have warned you to take your meds. Talk about a open invitation to abuse. FA/EM tanker in pve farm mishs to fuel the money to my FA/EM pvp tanker which happens to be the same toon ?
Without coloring my personal thoughts about stalkers ( and the people that claim you need skill to play one ) Flagging nulls out their effectiveness.
Perhaps a pvp learning zone would be a option but the truth is pvp is a small part of the game as a whole. PvPers are proud of the work involved in making a pvp toon. I like many others had to take my lumps and ask questions and take the ridicule while learning and I still have a long way to go.. I personally hope the Devs file this idea in the also ran dept.
If you wanna dummy it down or make it cheap and easy then this is the idea to go with. Personally implementing the duel modes would not only make me retch I would have to cancel my subscription and go play elf bowling.
[/ QUOTE ]
First an attitude like that is going to make alot of people laugh at your ideas, and ignore you completely .... Welcome to the forums.
Second, regardless of what the developers decide to do with PvP, something will happen to it. It will be revamped with more PvE element to it, less PvE element, or they will do away with it completely. I for one would rather see more PvE element to it so the people who don't like the PvP zones will go to them. If that means flagging, or dual builds, which one of the developers who posted here likes, then I'm all for it.
I don't want to see PvP get thrown to the side, and not be taken into consideration, or have it done away with all together. The fact is, when the created PvP, they could have done a much better job in creating it.
[ QUOTE ]
but the truth is pvp is a small part of the game as a whole
[/ QUOTE ]
And that is exactly why PvP needs to be revamped. If they use even a few of HB's ideas, I have no doubt it would increase PvP participation. I've said it before to, but I would really enjoy mini games where teams zone into an instance, and fight for some purpose, wheter it's capture the flag, taking control of key points, or whatever, with no NPC interference, and keep the main zones PvE/PvP and add more PvE to the zones.
[ QUOTE ]
Without coloring my personal thoughts about stalkers ( and the people that claim you need skill to play one )
[/ QUOTE ]
Come over to justice, and i'll be happy to kill any stalker you create repeatedly.
[ QUOTE ]
Personally implementing the duel modes would not only make me retch I would have to cancel my subscription and go play elf bowling.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bye
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PvPers are proud of the work involved in making a pvp toon. I like many others had to take my lumps and ask questions and take the ridicule while learning and I still have a long way to go.. I personally hope the Devs file this idea in the also ran dept.
If you wanna dummy it down or make it cheap and easy then this is the idea to go with. Personally implementing the duel modes would not only make me retch I would have to cancel my subscription and go play elf bowling.
[/ QUOTE ]
"I got treated like crap, and now I want to treat people like crap in return. If you make it so that when I treat people like crap, they can PvP and still exclude me then I will not play this game anymore."
Great argument. Aces.
[/ QUOTE ]
They should add a method of PvP where you can set up an instanced fight between yourself and your friends and customise what the win conditions are. That way people wouldn't be forced to fight those 99.9% of PvPers who grief people and trash talk.
[ QUOTE ]
I for one would rather see more PvE element to it so the people who don't like the PvP zones will go to them. If that means flagging, or dual builds, which one of the developers who posted here likes, then I'm all for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
While I agree with you in principle, I really don't believe that adding more PvE to PvP zones is a good answer. It won't get more non-PvPers in the zones, it will only make them mad that PvPers got their content, and if they did go to the zones for PvE they still won't be inclined to participate in PvP. It will only make PvPers mad because most don't want any PvE in their zones. It would make everybody upset and only serve to make the gap larger.
[ QUOTE ]
Personally implementing the duel modes would not only make me retch I would have to cancel my subscription and go play elf bowling.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you understand that the current system is already making people cancel their subscriptions or be forced to cancel (by being banned)?
The whole reason PvP came up as a big topic, was because it seems like the Devs were having trouble justifying throwing more money down the hole that PvP has become. Any argument that basically advocates for nothing more than fixes to the current implementation is basically lost from the start.
Understanding that there are plenty of individuals that do enjoy the current setup, it falls under the category of "you're never going to please everybody". The current setup doesn't work from the Devs point of view, which is, it isn't bringing in and retaining subscribers.
So, while they may lose you and your subscription, I'm sure they'd be thrilled with any system that boosted overall subscription numbers, even if that means losing a few long time die-hards.
If you have ideas to improve on the OP or a way to achieve the same goal with a completely different system, I'm sure everyone would love to hear it. Otherwise, you are just saying you'd rather wait for PvP to die off altogether rather than have to cancel your subscription because they've changed it.
Despite the OP getting somethings right, the basic premise that the PvP population has been "falling for years" is incorrect. Despite all of the flaws, most of which the OP accurately depicted, the PvP population has grown steadily from when I started until now. The real challenge that I "think" drives the design team nuts is that it should have grown much faster. PvP is a huge part of the MMO market and CoX significantly lags behind in that regard.
*Note* This ignores the statistical "bump" that was CoV's release and fall off a few months later. My comments are based on activity levels on Test and on Freedom.
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
on many other servers, the pvp population has seriously waned. Some to the point to where pvp is non existant beyond an SG fighting among each other every blue moon.
I think many pvpers just simply moved on to pvp exclusively on test andd some moved to the greener pvp pastures of Freedom sever. So, in short, your comments are right from a test and freedom server stand point.
-Female Player-
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mauk2
Evil_Legacy became one of my favorite posters with two words.
"Kick Rocks." I laffed so hard. Never change, E_L! |
My main objection is to being able to turn yourself off from pvp in a pvp zone.
I can never agree to that. The warning before you enter the zone is there for a reason.
If you want folks being able to observe in a pvp zone, then make it an "only affecting self" tag. That way they can't do anything till they flag themselves ON for pvp. No badges, no pve, nothing.
And once you turn on the flag you can only turn it off again till you leave the zone.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ QUOTE ]
*Note* This ignores the statistical "bump" that was CoV's release and fall off a few months later. My comments are based on activity levels on Test and on Freedom.
[/ QUOTE ]
That brings up another huge problem. The PvP population feels obligated to use the temporary testing server in order to get any substantive PvP action, while only one Live server has any regular PvP action on it.
Not to mention that most of the AT/powerset discrimination and "loot" issues are magnified tenfold in the Test environment. Not knocking or supporting it, that's just the reality of it.
Why no one sees this as a massive fustercluck is beyond me.
Cross-server PvP should be one of the main focus areas, IMO.
[ QUOTE ]
Cross-server PvP should be one of the main focus areas, IMO.
[/ QUOTE ]
A very good point. There was some dev talk some time ago about the possibility of removing the "server barrier" and allowing people to form inter-server teams, for instances at least. Maybe it would be something like the Guild Wars layout, where there are simply 12 Atlas Parks (generated dynamically like they do now), and you can pick which one to go to. If something like that happened in Co*, there might only end up being 3 or 4 Bloody Bays, but they would all be active. That might fix a lot of the problems right there, for example the fact that Shivans are trivial for PvEers to get on most servers.
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, one other change I'd like to see in pvp is the elimination of names, ATs and hp/end on the target bar of all the hostile players. People are either Hero or Villain and thats all you know. If you wanna know what they are, you have to get closer and see what they're actually doing to decide what they are. It'd add an element of risk and challenge that I'd like to see. Eventually, you'd get to recognize people by their costumes (unless they change costumes, adding another bit of randomness to it for a little more fun). Wolverene certainly doesn't have "Wolverene" floating over his head in orange letters with a scrapper icon next to his name and he does have a few different costumes. They've already hidden powersets from opposing 'inspectors' they may as well hide the rest of it. I could see teams/sgs wearing all the same costume having a bit of fun with this. It would also certianly put a little more risk in teleganking (and I'm not talking just stalkers, there's plenty of blaster telegankers too).
[/ QUOTE ]
I understand what you're saying, and to a degree, it makes sense. I do have a couple of questions for you.
With no names, how do you report someone for griefing/exploiting/cheating?
How would you know who's talking in /broadcast or (if you have them turned on) in /tells?