Would you PVP if PVP worked better?

I haven't read the thread. I am just answering the question posed in the title.

I would pvp if pvp had a point. By which I mean, some sort of narrative point within the structure of the game.

What would make me PvP? An active PvP community on my server. But I'm in Europe

If there's anything I can say that I've learned from reading 'to PvP or not to PvP' threads, it's that adding badges as incentives for PvP was ultimately a bad idea.

Personally, I don't get it. I've never been a badge fiend, and really think most badges are dumb and don't mean anything other than that you're willing to spend a long, long time repeating a task for a non-functional reward that most people never see. But it is clearly true that some hardcore completionists will do what they can to get all the badges.

This means that, on occasion, the hardcore badger will come into contact with the hardcore PvPer in an environment that allows and encourages PvP. This results in quite a lot of frustration, and even a rant on the boards once in a while, because hardcore badgers and hardcore PvPers are infrequently the same people.

I actually don't have a whole lot of sympathy for people who go into a PvP zone for badges and expect other players on the opposite side not to attack them. Do you seriously expect that Stalker on the opposing side to send you a tell, asking permission to stab you? The PvP zones are there specifically for PvP - it's right there in the name! If you're repulsed by the sight of fish, you should probably avoid the aquarium, even if the cafe there is awesome.

Adding badges to PvP zones and for PvP was a well-intentioned mistake, just like adding so many badges to AE at I14's launch was. It does encourage abuse of the rewards system, in the form of reputation farming. It adds incentives for players who can't stand PvP to put themselves at risk of it, which is no fun for anybody. Not even the guys doing the killing - I mean, I can only speak for myself, but I've killed a badger in a PvP zone before while playing with enemy broadcast off, and let me tell you, the single rep point wasn't worth the stream of invectives I got in a series of global tells.

I'm seriously glad that PvP zone badges aren't required for accolades anymore. I wish they'd go one step further and remove the exploration badges altogether.

Frankly, nothing would make me PvP. My regular gaming buddy has been trying to get me into it and I think he's given up. Nothing about it attracts me.

I go into the PvP zones to get the badges for villain accolades (thanks, devs), but do it off-peak and use stealth and other strategies if the character's build allows. Would I be annoyed if killed by another player while getting these explore badges? Yes. Would I blame the other players in zone? No. It's a risk I accept when going into the zone.

I don't agree with the devs decision to put explore badges that are needed for villain accolades in PvP zones, but I can't change that so I just have to accept the game mechanics and adjust my approach to minimise my contact with enemy players in the zone. The only other choice is to not get most villain accolades, and I don't like that option, either.

I would PvP if my friends PvPd. I have neither the inclination, the skills, or the system requirements to become a hardcore PvPer, and I have no interest in fighting hardcore PvPers, because I just lose a lot. I can handle the PvP game working differently than PvE. I don't like that everyone has to have SJ+SS, and I don't like the current implementation of travel suppression though.

I would PvP more if there was actually something for me and my hypothetically PvPing friends to do besides just beat the crap out of each other, but just beating the crap out of each other is sometimes fun for me.

I realized that I never truly answered the question.

If PvP worked better, then yes, I would PvP (at least as much as I do in online console games)

I've never truly understood why some won't (in this game at least) until I went into a zone for the first time. I said it before earlier in this thread, and this pertains to ALL games, console or MMO, but from my experiences in a multitude of games, people who hate PvP:

-Are not good at going against other players
("But how will your skill improve if you never face anyone outside of the AI?" is a common argument against this)

-Do not care for the smacktalk
(At least you can ignore or mute morons that do this)

-Don't see any point to it
(Which is true for most games)

It's horribly imbalanced and usually favors a certain type of class. When everyone is that, PvP is boring
(Marvel vs Capcom 2 for example: there are 56 characters, and most advanced players will only pick Sentinel, Storm and Magneto)


And it could be a certain type of PvP. I myself HATE FPS and gun PvP in general. (I'm not good at avoiding headshots, but that isn't the only reason.) But a fighting game? Bring it.

There are people who hate fighting game PvP, but love FPS.

There are people who hate strategy PvP, but love sports games online.

There are people who hate boardgame PvP, but love debates.

And like I said, there are people who just hate PvP in any shape or form.....it does not matter what game, athletic sport, et al. (Usually it's for the above reasons I listed. Then again some people really hate to lose.)

I'm not saying people who don't like PvP are wrong at all. But for me personally? Facing only the computer does get boring after awhile.

EDIT: Some spelling.

I'm reminded of an old magazine ad for GEnie (or was it Compuserve?) Pictured on the left was a microchip, with the caption: "This opponent is programmed to be challenging." On the right was a picture of, well, a rather insane looking invidual. His caption was "This one wants to rip your lungs out!"

Oh hey, I found the ad!

Clicky!

In anything like it's current form? No. PVP in this game is (so far, IMHO) a magnet for people I have no time for.

However PvP is _Player_ vs _Player_ not "Character Avatar" vs "Character Avatar"

How about PvP where the Avatars almost never fight each other?

Imagine making your base knowing that you will never have to face players in there, only NPC's? You publish the base to be "Raided".

Part of the cost of the base is spent in adding minions much like the current defences. Even being able to allocate AE-style "copies" of your SG Avatars as NPC defenders.

Another SG that has their base set to "raidable" is allowed to raid yours, if you're online when it happens you get to watch a-la the arena.

The defences _scale_ according to the number/level of the attackers, bigger bases just take longer, they aren't any harder. You can't re-enter if you are killed and not-rezzed (but you can watch) rewards are given to the defending SG if their NPC's repulse the attack (by killing all/some the attacking PC's) rewards are given to the attackers if they succeed in getting to their objective, proportional to the cost of the base's defences/size/number of objectives (power/control/teleporters, this could be set up by the defenders a-la objectives in AE)

After the attack broken items are repaired by an auto-repair (npc drone that wanders around fixing things, just for show) and it takes X time per prestige point (up to a max of maybe 2 hours total, base upgrades could reduce that time). IMHO just enough to provide an incentive to make good defences.

It's player created content that is PvP, just not Avatar vs Avatar.

I'd play that.

PvP zones are also the only level gated areas on that side of the game. The devs may have wanted to use that to regulate how early one could actually get those accolades.

All this talk about going into a PVP zone makes some one fair game seems sill to me.

I don't say this to offend anyone, but I honestly don't get it.

Person A goes into PvP to get a couple badges or a temp power or what ever. Person A is actively avoiding other players, dealing only with the things that person needs to in order to get the thing their after and get out of the zone.

Person B is in the zone in theory, to PvP. Person B sees person A and decides to shoot them in the back and kill them though Person A is actively not engaging them and is in fact running away.

Is person A fair game? Yes, within rules of the game they are. But why on earth would person B go after that person? I mean honestly, what joy do you get out of killing a non combatant who is actively avoiding a fight.

That's not really PvP, thats just you destroying some one. Is that fun, is their enjoyment in that? I honestly never got that.

Also, I think this is where PvPers shoot themselves in the foot so to speak. It wouldn't be hard for PvPers to simply go after people who were in the zone to PvP and ignore the passers by and let them get what ever temp they want and get out of the zone. They could simply go to the other people who PVP and take them out. Instead they choose to go after non-combatants and end up alienating people from PvPing all together. If people tried to be a little nicer about it, actually talk to the other people in PvP, try to get them into a friendly fight or explain to them about PvP, coach them as I have often seen people do in PvE, the PvP community might actually grow quite a bit more and make it more fun for everyone.

But hey, that's my 2 cents worth. PvP zones are in fact free fire zones, and their is nothing to say that killing who ever you see in the zone is against the rules or immoral or wrong in any way because it isn't. I just can't see how it's much fun or does any good outside of a quick "ohh awesome I killed some one in the back yay me" moment.