A Non-PVPer's Solution To PVP

I saw something awesome while skimming:
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe a loss in PvP should still earn “merit-alikes”? Certainly not as many as winning, but perhaps what we need to reward is participation and not just victory.

[/ QUOTE ]
I won't get too deeply into my various aversions for PvP, but the feeling of going in, getting whupped, and having nothing to show for it but a sense of failure is one reason I don't get especially excited to go PvP. A small but tangible reward for getting my [censored] beat would be a HUGE incentive for me to try PvP more. And of course, once there, the bigger reward for success would naturally make me want to compete. This would be a great incentive for "normal" people to get in there.

[ QUOTE ]
Bloody Bay
If a PVE mode character should attempt to grief a PVPer making the run, the more dangerous spawn they generate will initially be aggroed on them, giving the PVEer (and possibly friends) time to get their samples before having to face a larger threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right there, that addresses my concern with your plan for BB. I would add the caveat that maybe the tougher spawn would in fact be "taunted" onto the player that made them spawn, at least for a few seconds, to make this solution feasible. Otherwise, since the defending Shivans can't chase after a griefer doing, say, a Super Speed "drive-by", they would immediately shift their attention to those still hanging out at the meteor.

[ QUOTE ]
Siren's Call

The "hotspots" would still appear on the map and be active, but "control" of the hotspots would not gate access to the zone temp powers. The temps are accessed with merit-alikes and the hotspots merely serve to let all open-zone free-form PVPers know "where the fight is". Players of appropriate faction in either PVE or PVP mode could buff npcs of their own faction, but the npcs are so weak it really would be pointless and if they did, PVPers could just shift their fight 50 ft so they're out of aggro range to ignore the attempted "griefing".
All the play types that are currently in the PVP zones would still be available.

[/ QUOTE ]
With respect, that still ends up marginalizing the SC play type that I enjoyed - Villain PCs and Arachnos vs. Hero PCs and Longbow. So not quite "all" of the current play types would still be there. I think you're writing off the NPCs a little too lightly. Back when I was winning the zone for villainy, I didn't just fly in and laugh off a Warden, 2 Officers, and 5 Nullifiers, with assorted minions to the tune of 8-12. I had to use Arachnos as a shield. And when a hero or heroes showed up, things really got interesting. Some flag-off Defender strolling in with his AE heals and buffs would completely destroy that scenario, and the only balancing factor (the Defender's personal vulnerability) would be off limits.

Don't get me wrong! Again, your system would add a lot more than it would take away! I just think you're going a bit far saying that absolutely nothing would be lost.

[ QUOTE ]
merit-alikes (can someone please come up with a better name for these things?)

[/ QUOTE ]
"PvP Merits" sounds good to me. You could even call them PPMs for short.

[ QUOTE ]
I won't get too deeply into my various aversions for PvP, but the feeling of going in, getting whupped, and having nothing to show for it but a sense of failure is one reason I don't get especially excited to go PvP. A small but tangible reward for getting my [censored] beat would be a HUGE incentive for me to try PvP more. And of course, once there, the bigger reward for success would naturally make me want to compete. This would be a great incentive for "normal" people to get in there.

[/ QUOTE ]

you dont get a reward for getting your butt "whupped" in PvE, why would you get a reward for doing the same in PvP? you get no debt, you dont lose any enhancements or anything, and all you gotta do is just rez in the zone or the arena. there is little to no risk in PvP for little to no reward (besides the rep and kill badges and Shivans and Nukes).

[ QUOTE ]
you dont get a reward for getting your butt "whupped" in PvE, why would you get a reward for doing the same in PvP?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because we are looking for ways to stimulate PvP population growth. "Come in, battle for hours, and leave with nothing" is not a great enticement. Shivans etc. ARE a pretty good enticement, but it is still MUCH easier to get such rewards by sneaking into the zone at 2AM when nobody is around. If you don't want a direct material incentive to PvP, fine - I'd love to hear your better ideas to stimulate growth. Because if there are no better ideas, PvP development is dead and buried.

[ QUOTE ]
Because if there are no better ideas, PvP development is dead and buried.

[/ QUOTE ]

that thread is a terrible example of development being dead. its basically "a few of you guys are bad mmkay? quit being bad or else we'll take away your toys." in all honesty, that thread made Ex Libris and the NCSoft staff look like a joke.

im all for PvP getting looked at and getting its share of fixes. i normally stay away from it because i get my butt whipped 3/4ths of the time. no big deal to me, and im sure when i get burnt out on leveling ill go back to trying to get better. i just think it should stay the same, but get a few balancing fixes. that's it. it's pretty obvious that the playerbase that wants to PvP is small, but trying to bribe people into a zone isn't the answer.

Very impressed! Great post!

[ QUOTE ]
i just think it should stay the same, but get a few balancing fixes. that's it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're entitled to that opinion, but my impression is that even the PvPers, generally, would disagree with you. Taking steps to increase population would benefit everybody.

[ QUOTE ]
trying to bribe people into a zone isn't the answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not? "Bribing" people into missions with reduced debt and increased xp worked like a charm, yet I don't feel somehow dirty for accepting the bait. Missions are fun. If tangible rewards were attached to PvP, and PvP still sucked but I did it anyway to get the rewards, then I would agree that that was a bad solution. We're talking here about improving PvP, making it less exclusive and more fun, and incentivizing it so that more people will try it out. I don't see a problem with any of that.

If you think PvP is just dandy as is, great. Personally, I think it could be way better.

<QR>
PvP Merits for loosing would be a fair draw. A similar idea is done in that other MMO and seems to work there. Sure, you don't gain anything for loosing in PvE. But then in PvE your expected to win far in excess of 50% of the time, the average win rate in PvP.

3 PvP Merits (or more) for a win and 1 PvP Merit for a loose would be a fair starting ratio. Costs in PvP Merits would probably have to assume regular wins however.

Decent ideas overall for making entry into PvP easier and more appealing to the curious.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bloody Bay
If a PVE mode character should attempt to grief a PVPer making the run, the more dangerous spawn they generate will initially be aggroed on them, giving the PVEer (and possibly friends) time to get their samples before having to face a larger threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right there, that addresses my concern with your plan for BB. I would add the caveat that maybe the tougher spawn would in fact be "taunted" onto the player that made them spawn, at least for a few seconds, to make this solution feasible. Otherwise, since the defending Shivans can't chase after a griefer doing, say, a Super Speed "drive-by", they would immediately shift their attention to those still hanging out at the meteor.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I described much earlier in the thread, but it's a long way back. I avoided using a specific mechanic word like "taunted" since I'm mucking about in some complex alterations, but that's exactly the effect I wanted: You woke it up, you get the hate for a good while regardless of where anyone else is (unless another PVEer goes for the rock; then they get the hate).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Siren's Call

The "hotspots" would still appear on the map and be active, but "control" of the hotspots would not gate access to the zone temp powers. The temps are accessed with merit-alikes and the hotspots merely serve to let all open-zone free-form PVPers know "where the fight is". Players of appropriate faction in either PVE or PVP mode could buff npcs of their own faction, but the npcs are so weak it really would be pointless and if they did, PVPers could just shift their fight 50 ft so they're out of aggro range to ignore the attempted "griefing".
All the play types that are currently in the PVP zones would still be available.

[/ QUOTE ]
With respect, that still ends up marginalizing the SC play type that I enjoyed - Villain PCs and Arachnos vs. Hero PCs and Longbow. So not quite "all" of the current play types would still be there. I think you're writing off the NPCs a little too lightly. Back when I was winning the zone for villainy, I didn't just fly in and laugh off a Warden, 2 Officers, and 5 Nullifiers, with assorted minions to the tune of 8-12. I had to use Arachnos as a shield. And when a hero or heroes showed up, things really got interesting. Some flag-off Defender strolling in with his AE heals and buffs would completely destroy that scenario, and the only balancing factor (the Defender's personal vulnerability) would be off limits.

Don't get me wrong! Again, your system would add a lot more than it would take away! I just think you're going a bit far saying that absolutely nothing would be lost.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I haven't actually done that, I can't speak to your specific criticism and you may have a point. I considered it an unnecessary bit of finageling. If that's not the case then leave PVE-flagged characters unable to buff npcs of same faction and still targettable by npcs of unaligned faction.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
merit-alikes (can someone please come up with a better name for these things?)

[/ QUOTE ]
"PvP Merits" sounds good to me. You could even call them
PPMs for short.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Merits", as in 'citation for Merit', is a character and roleplay specific name associated with military activity in the Vanguard. I'm looking for something similarly appropriate.

As to whether merit-alikes should be earned for a loss, as I said in an earlier post I leave all such calculations to someone who knows more game-theory than I do.

[ QUOTE ]
"Merits", as in 'citation for Merit', is a character and roleplay specific name associated with military activity in the Vanguard. I'm looking for something similarly appropriate.

As to whether merit-alikes should be earned for a loss, as I said in an earlier post I leave all such calculations to someone who knows more game-theory than I do.

[/ QUOTE ]
Considering you could use a Longbow or Arachnos Quartermaster as the location to redeem PvP Merits, the term could still be appropriate.
Failing that Thesaurus.com can help.

<QR>

Damnit, this should be stickied.

NOW!!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did we get teleported? We're in "City Life - CoH & CoV General Discussions" now?

This is hardly a general discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's been in here the whole time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually it wasn't; see Gata_'s post on the second page. About three seconds after I copy-pasted the second post in it got shifted to suggestions and ideas based on its nature. A little over an hour after that someone read through the content, saw the reaction, and moved it back here.

[ QUOTE ]
I saw something awesome while skimming:
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe a loss in PvP should still earn “merit-alikes”? Certainly not as many as winning, but perhaps what we need to reward is participation and not just victory.

[/ QUOTE ]
I won't get too deeply into my various aversions for PvP, but the feeling of going in, getting whupped, and having nothing to show for it but a sense of failure is one reason I don't get especially excited to go PvP. A small but tangible reward for getting my [censored] beat would be a HUGE incentive for me to try PvP more. And of course, once there, the bigger reward for success would naturally make me want to compete. This would be a great incentive for "normal" people to get in there.

[/ QUOTE ]

...by rolling a FOTM and getting a buddy to help you IO up by pitting you against a mule.

[ QUOTE ]

[ Bloody Bay
If they should decide to start on the zone mini-game, they should probably get a team together (regardles of AT). Whether they do or not, from a great distance from each rock, a Shivan Decimator spawns along with a coterie of Devastator bosses. The shivans will not leave the immediate vicinity of the rock and thus cannot be taunted away; nor will they remain aggroed on another if a player "attacks" the rock with the spoon.


[/ QUOTE ]

Stealth FTW. I'm able to get to the rock, and collect the sample. I become temporaly visible for a few seconds, but not long enough to zip away without taking damage. A soloution to that would be to increase the time needed to collect a stone sample, and the respawn rate of a new stone coming back?

Perception boost.

Stealth isn't needed specifically against the rocks in PVP mode as you may never even set off the spawn and in PVE it's not desirable

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Siren's Call

The "hotspots" would still appear on the map and be active, but "control" of the hotspots would not gate access to the zone temp powers. The temps are accessed with merit-alikes and the hotspots merely serve to let all open-zone free-form PVPers know "where the fight is". Players of appropriate faction in either PVE or PVP mode could buff npcs of their own faction, but the npcs are so weak it really would be pointless and if they did, PVPers could just shift their fight 50 ft so they're out of aggro range to ignore the attempted "griefing".
All the play types that are currently in the PVP zones would still be available.


[/ QUOTE ]
With respect, that still ends up marginalizing the SC play type that I enjoyed - Villain PCs and Arachnos vs. Hero PCs and Longbow. So not quite "all" of the current play types would still be there. I think you're writing off the NPCs a little too lightly. Back when I was winning the zone for villainy, I didn't just fly in and laugh off a Warden, 2 Officers, and 5 Nullifiers, with assorted minions to the tune of 8-12. I had to use Arachnos as a shield. And when a hero or heroes showed up, things really got interesting. Some flag-off Defender strolling in with his AE heals and buffs would completely destroy that scenario, and the only balancing factor (the Defender's personal vulnerability) would be off limits.

Don't get me wrong! Again, your system would add a lot more than it would take away! I just think you're going a bit far saying that absolutely nothing would be lost.


[/ QUOTE ]
As I haven't actually done that, I can't speak to your specific criticism and you may have a point. I considered it an unnecessary bit of finageling. If that's not the case then leave PVE-flagged characters unable to buff npcs of same faction and still targettable by npcs of unaligned faction.


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you could take the same solution you take in RV, but only with these particular groups of spawns, and be unable to attack/buff any of them until you enter PvP mode.

[ QUOTE ]

"Merits", as in 'citation for Merit', is a character and roleplay specific name associated with military activity in the Vanguard. I'm looking for something similarly appropriate.


[/ QUOTE ]
Virtue Points, Value Points, Warrent Points, Commendation Points and that's all I can come up with .... pick one

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe a loss in PvP should still earn “merit-alikes”? Certainly not as many as winning, but perhaps what we need to reward is participation and not just victory.

[/ QUOTE ]
A small but tangible reward for getting my [censored] beat would be a HUGE incentive for me to try PvP more. And of course, once there, the bigger reward for success would naturally make me want to compete. This would be a great incentive for "normal" people to get in there.

[/ QUOTE ]

...by rolling a FOTM and getting a buddy to help you IO up by pitting you against a mule.

[/ QUOTE ]
GASP!!!! OH MY!!!! YOU MEAN PVP REWARDS COULD BE FARMABLE?!?!?

Uh, I know that already. That's why I suggested that the rewards be small. If the maximum amount you could farm in PvP was half as much as you could get through PvE in the same amount of time, would it still break the game? Perhaps you could only get x amount of rewards per day against a given global account. There are other ideas out there to discourage farming, or make the rewards for farming not worth the time, while still allowing for any rewards whatsoever to exist. The existence of exploiters is not big big news to me - the fact of farmers does not completely shut down the idea of attaching ANY kind of tangible incentive to PvP.

I've heard responses before to this line of reasoning, along the lines of, "If the rewards aren't huge, there's no reason to include them at all!" This is, in a word, untrue.

I've been thinking about this a couple of days now, and I think opening up the PvP zones with PvE content and PvP flagging is a nice idea - but it would kill zone PvP. It might be worth it if the devs decide to abandon pvp as non-selling, but not otherwise.

PvP-ers would have to glow at a distance of one mile to even find one another among the PvE crowds. And convincing a PvE player to turn on the PvP flag... Not likely to happen often.

Now when you enter a PvP zone you know that anyone you target is either a friend or a foe. With PvP flags, mostly of the people you see would be neutrals, completely uninterested. Not even spectators.

People would also develop various nasty tricks in order to get others PvP flagged. Get yourself PvP marked, then stand next to someone who is using a healing aura fpr PvE purposes? Probably instant PvP flag.

So, while I like tie idea of making these zones more useful, I don't think this is the way. One possible way to do it would be to create separate PvE instances of them. That salvages the job put into the zones from a PvE perspective, but kills the idea of introducing PvEers to PvP.

[ QUOTE ]
PvP-ers would have to glow at a distance of one mile to even find one another among the PvE crowds. And convincing a PvE player to turn on the PvP flag... Not likely to happen often.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or they could just target the people with the Orange names as they do now. Or they could Broadcast "I'm in X_neighborhood looking for a fight" as they do now. Even Steel Canyon doesn't see the un-navigable population density you describe. PVP players should be lucky to have such a problem to deal with.

[ QUOTE ]
People would also develop various nasty tricks in order to get others PvP flagged. Get yourself PvP marked, then stand next to someone who is using a healing aura fpr PvE purposes? Probably instant PvP flag.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no clue what you are talking about here. I suspect this is the legacy of Xury's posts based on it not making sense. Please go back a couple pages and read the recap post I put up.

[ QUOTE ]
So, while I like tie idea of making these zones more useful, I don't think this is the way. One possible way to do it would be to create separate PvE instances of them. That salvages the job put into the zones from a PvE perspective, but kills the idea of introducing PvEers to PvP.

[/ QUOTE ]
That kills the idea of getting any infusion of new players into PVP and essentially kills PVP period for development priority.

[ QUOTE ]


People would also develop various nasty tricks in order to get others PvP flagged. Get yourself PvP marked, then stand next to someone who is using a healing aura fpr PvE purposes? Probably instant PvP flag.



[/ QUOTE ]

The first thing I thought of was that broadcast trash talk would escalate beyond all reason in an attempt to get people to flag for PvP.

Not really a trick, but if trash talk is really as big of an issue as people say it is now it certainly would be counterproductive to getting non-PvPers to try it.

[ QUOTE ]
The first thing I thought of was that broadcast trash talk would escalate beyond all reason in an attempt to get people to flag for PvP.

Not really a trick, but if trash talk is really as big of an issue as people say it is now it certainly would be counterproductive to getting non-PvPers to try it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed it would be. And then it would taper off shortly after as PVP players either learned to be more solicitous or left off because they kept themselves from having any playmates.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The first thing I thought of was that broadcast trash talk would escalate beyond all reason in an attempt to get people to flag for PvP.

Not really a trick, but if trash talk is really as big of an issue as people say it is now it certainly would be counterproductive to getting non-PvPers to try it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed it would be. And then it would taper off shortly after as PVP players either learned to be more solicitous or left off because they kept themselves from having any playmates.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that might be true if the trash talkers were actually capable of reason. I mean really, how well has that worked so far? It's still one of the biggest complaints after all this time, and it's not even as bad as it used to be.

Personally, I think the issue of trash talking is just an excuse that is easy to hold onto, but one that will always exist. There will always be people that trash talk in any PvP, and there will always be people that get upset by it. Flagging for PvP will bring those two groups together, but not in a good way.

If only people would learn to turn off broadcast in PvP then the issue wouldn't exist.

[ QUOTE ]

PvP-ers would have to glow at a distance of one mile to even find one another among the PvE crowds. And convincing a PvE player to turn on the PvP flag... Not likely to happen often.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the unthinkable would happen .......

PvPers will be NICE to each other! *gasp*

This is just a random post for thanking everyone posting on this thread for keeping it civilized and constructive. I feel that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, and thank HB for coming up with such a great idea and topic for discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
I think that might be true if the trash talkers were actually capable of reason. I mean really, how well has that worked so far? It's still one of the biggest complaints after all this time, and it's not even as bad as it used to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
The question of "trash talkers'" reasoning capabilities aside, I believe they are capable of getting bored.

[ QUOTE ]
If only people would learn to turn off broadcast in PvP then the issue wouldn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a symptomatic solution based on the miscomprehension that those who avoid PVP for the "trash talk" are viscerally offended by the words themselves. The reason for citing "trash talk" is that they find the people voicing it not worth spending time with; let alone playing with. Just because they can't hear it doesn't make the problem go away.

*Not being forced to play with said individuals, on the other hand, would better address the irritation

EDIT: edited for clarity *