PvP and Badge Hunting Just Don't Mix
By
Adeon Hawkwood,
Posted on: 2010-03-19 20:46 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
I'm pretty sure I've already said enough here to make my position clear, but it never hurts to clarify.|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Quick poll:
If all non-PvP specific badges were moved out of PvP zones, would that... 1) Help PvP? "Anyone in the zone obviously wants to PvP, so there will be one less thing to whine about." 2) Hurt PvP? "No new players are coming to PvP zones, because there isn't even the slightest incentive." 3) Have no effect on PvP? "The hardcore PvPers will always play, and no one else will ever join, regardless, so PvP can't be affected by this." And a follow up question: - Should the Devs provide any kind of incentive for Non-PVPers to try PvP out, even if it isn't badges? |
1. I think that any activity in a PvP zone with rewards outside of PvP that is made significantly more difficult by the presence of people PvPing in the zone should be removed or altered. To clarify, that means nukes, shivans, and RV villain badges, but not exploration badges. I've already suggested how zone rewards can be tied to actual PvP play, but I'd be just as happy with removing nukes and shivans entirely as they create many balancing issues in PvE that have never been properly addressed.
I think this will have no effect on zone PvP directly, but will remove a major source of friction in the player community. To put it bluntly, if it weren't for the periodic dustups over PvEers in PvP zones, I think the PvP community would have a much better reputation and receive more and better developer attention, instead of being seen as "those jerks who keep me from getting what I want". To be clear, it is not up to the PvP community to improve their perception among others. The very idea of zone etiquette points to a failure of design. There is no sane reason why people engaged in a legitimate zone activity should be set up by the design of the reward system to be the balancing hindrance of another group of people also engaged in a legitimate zone activity. (Yes, I know that it sounds insane to be talking about competition being bad in the context of PvP, but while PvPers are very clearly engaged in a two-sided game, their goals are symmetric, which is not the case when PvPers run into PvEers.)
2. The devs should absolutely incentivize PvEers to try out PvP, much, much more than they do now. However, the incentive should be tied to seeking out enemy players to attack, and attacking them, or supporting other players who are doing the same. If the reward doesn't encourage fighting, it's not a PvP reward, and it's not a good idea. I am personally of the opinion that it is not necessary to only incentivize winning; everyone starts, if not at the bottom, then well below the top. If there's a bribe to stick with it, even when losing, there's a better chance of keeping people interested in PvP until they get good, and as long as first prize is better than last prize there's enough incentive to get better. But even a system that only rewards success is better than a system that rewards avoidance.
Of course, I've been of this opinion for a long time and it hasn't gained much traction yet. But it doesn't hurt me any to keep mentioning that oh, by the way, we should destroy Carthage.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
Getting PvE rewards out of PvP zones would be most likely to help PvP. |
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Quick poll:
If all non-PvP specific badges were moved out of PvP zones, would that... 1) Help PvP? "Anyone in the zone obviously wants to PvP, so there will be one less thing to whine about." 2) Hurt PvP? "No new players are coming to PvP zones, because there isn't even the slightest incentive." 3) Have no effect on PvP? "The hardcore PvPers will always play, and no one else will ever join, regardless, so PvP can't be affected by this." And a follow up question: - Should the Devs provide any kind of incentive for Non-PVPers to try PvP out, even if it isn't badges? |
People who have a frustrating series of experiences at a restaurant at some point just ... stop going to that restaurant. It doesn't matter who or why, after a while. And the current way of setting PvP and PvE players up against each other is an efficient factory for mass producing frustration.
Incentives focused on PvP are fine, and a good idea.
The thing is, it's not like PvP was a recent addition to the zones, it was ALWAYS there.
I could understand people being upset if they were PvE zones for years and they suddenly added PvP to it out of nowhere, but that's not the case.
They were designed as PvP zones and have always been PvP zones. You knew that before you ever got the very first Shivans or nukes you ever obtained because they were clearly labeled as such. Getting pissy because you can't get your temp powers in peace in a zone that was designed from day 1 to have PvP occuring in it is pretty ludicrous.
According to the PvE only players, PvPers have no right to bother them, even though they willingly made themselves a target in one of four places in the entire game that they can be attacked by another player. In ANY other situation where you have the enemy army's uniform on, you will be attacked. How is CoH PvP any different? Oh, wait......it's not.
Sorry guys, when you're in a PvP zone, you are subject to PvP, whether you like it or not. If you don't want to be subjected to PvP you can leave the zone any time you want, you are not forced to be there, and you are not prevented from leaving.
It really is that simple.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
The only place a feel PvErs have a valid complaint is the villain accolade and this is only because there is no hero PvP accolade overlap. Moving either one of the hero badges into or the villain out of PvP would both give an equality that removes ground for complaint. Now one of these options will make peoples heads explode (and rightfully so) so I couldn't see it as a real option.
I see all the prizes gained in PvP zones as PvP prizes rather you are required to PvP for them or not because they expose you to PvP. I do wish there were PvP accolades though. The power could be like "Plan B: Years of conflict have taught you that sometimes one must regroup. +Speed(minor) +Fly(minor) +Jump(minor) +Stealth(extreem) 30 sec duration 0 Cast 1 hour recharge"
How about Gladiator?
@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617
Quote:
That is my vote. Players that want to test it will do so, and players that avoid it will avoid it. |
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Quick poll:
3) Have no effect on PvP? "The hardcore PvPers will always play, and no one else will ever join, regardless, so PvP can't be affected by this." |
Quote:
|
And a follow up question: - Should the Devs provide any kind of incentive for Non-PVPers to try PvP out, even if it isn't badges? |
That's a day job...I want a regular accolade.
Claws, you are incontrovertibly right about the design intent of the zones and the reward structure about the zones. Your argument is still about as effective in quelling resentment as rolling your face around on the keyboard.
From the perspective of the PvEer, the PvPer is being unreasonable because they're not doing what the PvEer would do in that situation: cooperate so that everyone can achieve their goal faster. From the perspective of the PvPer, the PvEer is being unreasonable because they're not doing what the PvPer would do in that situation: fight, as the zone was intended for. People are different, which is fine, but when the zone design sets up a conflict between two groups of people who both feel that they are acting reasonably, the result is an intractable source of friction. As I said before and will continue to say, the PvPers have the intent of the zone behind them, and the PvEers have the facts of how the zone dispenses rewards behind them.
You must admit that without PvP, the zone rewards would be absurdly easy to obtain for their value, which is part of their "balancing factor". This has been brought up time and time again as the reason why they must be in a PvP zone. The problem is that they're still easy to obtain as long as nobody uses the zone for its intended purpose. This means that control of the risk/reward ratio is placed directly in the hands of players. This is a recipe for disaster.
Suppose that there was a zone where you could run instanced missions where enemies gave double XP, inf, and drops. However, other players could arbitrarily choose to adjust your mission difficulty upwards without increasing the reward, for credit toward a badge and a chance at a rare and valuable item. Can you imagine how much resentment there would be towards people who used that feature? Yet it's definitely part of the design of the zone, intended to balance the otherwise too-good rewards. It'd create an enormous howling scream-fight between those who try to get the good mission rewards in a cooperative fashion and those who tweak upward mission difficulty for the benefit that provides. It'd go around and around between "look, this is totally an exploitable reward as long as we get along" and "the zone is designed with this feature, I'm within my rights to use it as intended."
No of course it's not a perfect analogy, in all sorts of ways. But it cuts to the heart of the matter, which is this: when players are, by design, allowed to control how difficult it is for other players to do something as a free and voluntary choice, this is a recipe for disaster. No matter how fair and balanced it was intended to be, those who choose to follow the design intent of the system for any reason become the enemy of everyone else. I mean for heaven's sake, if nothing else, isn't the PvP community tired of being among the most resented minorities in the game, just because the most frequent first encounter a player is likely to have with PvP is getting shot on the way to trying to grab a Shivan? It's not like the PvPers have this level of blind faith in developer intent in any other respect - remember I13 and how it made PvP totally awesome and anyone who says otherwise is a whiner?
I wonder why I even try, it's not like anyone reads this crap.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
They only become the enemies of people who want to exploit the PvP zone for free toys.
|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
No matter how fair and balanced it was intended to be, those who choose to follow the design intent of the system for any reason become the enemy of everyone else.
|
Quote:
You know I mentioned pretty much the exact same thing waaaayy back in the thread. |
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Quick poll:
If all non-PvP specific badges were moved out of PvP zones, would that... 1) Help PvP? "Anyone in the zone obviously wants to PvP, so there will be one less thing to whine about." 2) Hurt PvP? "No new players are coming to PvP zones, because there isn't even the slightest incentive." 3) Have no effect on PvP? "The hardcore PvPers will always play, and no one else will ever join, regardless, so PvP can't be affected by this." And a follow up question: - Should the Devs provide any kind of incentive for Non-PVPers to try PvP out, even if it isn't badges? |
The only reply I got when I said about stripping out PvE mechanics from the PvP zone was that there and turning the PvP zones into a pure PvP experience was 'we use the arena for that'. In other words PvPers don't WANT the PvE mechanics stripped out of the zone because it provides a lure and the occasional bit of drama when a PvEr wanders in to get the badges.
Now the following things would be PvP and as such remain:
1) PvP side missions (they have an overall affect on the zone).
2) The 'capture the point' game of Heavies and turrets in RV.
3) Exploration badges would be left in of course.
The following things would be stripped out of the PvP zones:
1) RV heroes/villains and associated badges (now any defeat of the specific heroes/villains awards the badge, however the villain defeat badges are only available to heroes since villain PCs can fight their patrons/Recluse but this wouldn't unlock the badges).
2) Shivans and Nukes (Shivans would be reduced to a 'Boss' classed ally and the nuke buffs/debuffs would be cut in half but both would be rewarded through a repeatable PvE mechanic).
3) NPCs would be stripped down to a vastly reduced presence, to counter the annoyance that certain enemies only appear in PvP zones, Tsoo Blue Ink men would now turn up heroside amongsts normal spawns of Tsoo for their level range and Warriors would now turn up villainside in paper missions for their level range.
Now I can probably feel there's a large number of PvPers who are quite glad I'm not in charge of dealing with PvP in this game as many would probably cry 'ruined forever...again...' after the changes but this is just how I'd deal with it.
Quote:
Nice assumption about their motives because they couldn't possibly enjoy the zone aspects mixed with PvP even though I am fairly certain that was presented at least once in this thread. Note I am NOT a PvPer and I stay out of the zones when the PvPers are there or I avoid them if at all possible. If they kill me, oh well I'll try again later. I don't come crying to the forums to have the devs change the PvP zones.|
Originally Posted by Dr_Mechano
You know I mentioned pretty much the exact same thing waaaayy back in the thread.
The only reply I got when I said about stripping out PvE mechanics from the PvP zone was that there and turning the PvP zones into a pure PvP experience was 'we use the arena for that'. In other words PvPers don't WANT the PvE mechanics stripped out of the zone because it provides a lure and the occasional bit of drama when a PvEr wanders in to get the badges. |
Pure PvP is in the arenas.
Mix is in PvP zones.
No PvP everywhere else in the game.
I am beginning to think the anti-PvP crowd is being deliberate in distorting the PvP perspective or they are too dumb to get it.
total kick to the gut
This is like having Ra's Al Ghul show up at your birthday party.
Quote:
nope|
Originally Posted by Dr_Mechano
You know I mentioned pretty much the exact same thing waaaayy back in the thread.
The only reply I got when I said about stripping out PvE mechanics from the PvP zone was that there and turning the PvP zones into a pure PvP experience was 'we use the arena for that'. In other words PvPers don't WANT the PvE mechanics stripped out of the zone because it provides a lure and the occasional bit of drama when a PvEr wanders in to get the badges. |
A lot of PvPers like the environment to be interactive. That's why FPS have more flavors then just death match. PvPers want more to do then just fight they want goals. They want rewards for those goals. They want to play games. This is what the PvP zones do. They add flavor. Flavor for PvP. PvEers feel entitled for that flavor as well but some of them ***** and moan about the meal.
Quote:
The essential problem is that this treats PvP as a punishment for trying to get free toys, and it's a punishment that players voluntarily inflict on each other. Why would you not resent the people who punish you when they don't have to, even if they are allowed and encouraged to do so? The expectation that people will learn to enjoy the activity that is inflicted on them as punishment for trying to get what they want is, quite literally, perverse.
|
Originally Posted by LISAR
They only become the enemies of people who want to exploit the PvP zone for free toys.
|
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
Why would you perversely choose to risk PvP if it is so painful to you that you use words like "inflict" and "punishment"?|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
The essential problem is that this treats PvP as a punishment for trying to get free toys, and it's a punishment that players voluntarily inflict on each other. Why would you not resent the people who punish you when they don't have to, even if they are allowed and encouraged to do so? The expectation that people will learn to enjoy the activity that is inflicted on them as punishment for trying to get what they want is, quite literally, perverse.
|
Why should someone get the goodies for free in the PvP zones? Sounds to me like spoiled brats.
total kick to the gut
This is like having Ra's Al Ghul show up at your birthday party.
Quote:
Why would you perversely choose to voluntarily attack someone who has no interest in fighting you?|
Originally Posted by SwellGuy
Why would you perversely choose to risk PvP if it is so painful to you that you use words like "inflict" and "punishment"?
|
Quote:
| Why should someone get the goodies for free in the PvP zones? Sounds to me like spoiled brats. |
Before you start on the next go round, let me state for the hundredth time that I do not believe that PvPers attacking targets in PvP zones are doing anything unreasonable. Nor do I believe that anyone is entitled to PvP rewards without engaging in PvP. The sole problem I have is with the design that makes it possible for PvEers to obtain large rewards in PvP zones without engaging in PvP, and then places the decision as to whether this will happen in the hands of PvPers. Who then have the choice between doing what they came to do, what they are allowed to do, what they are even incentivized to do... or not making someone's day harder than it necessarily had to be.
Why do you even want to have that choice? Neither option is good. And as much as you might wish it, the option to attack people, make their acquisition of rewards more difficult than it strictly had to be, and have them always accept this as good and proper is never going to happen. Do you know how I know this? Because we're still arguing.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
Um, yeah. I'll keep arguing with people who say the earth is flat also. Because they are wrong. The person who thinks they should get those PvE goodies without the risk of getting ganked is wrong. Period. Until they get a brain cell in their head and see that they are wrong and will continue to be wrong. They can argue until the sun burns out and they will still be wrong.|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
The sole problem I have is with the design that makes it possible for PvEers to obtain large rewards in PvP zones without engaging in PvP, and then places the decision as to whether this will happen in the hands of PvPers. Who then have the choice between doing what they came to do, what they are allowed to do, what they are even incentivized to do... or not making someone's day harder than it necessarily had to be.
Why do you even want to have that choice? Neither option is good. And as much as you might wish it, the option to attack people, make their acquisition of rewards more difficult than it strictly had to be, and have them always accept this as good and proper is never going to happen. Do you know how I know this? Because we're still arguing. |
Shivans and Nukes come with the risk of PvP. Period. Any other expectation is selfish entitlement unreasonableness. Period.
total kick to the gut
This is like having Ra's Al Ghul show up at your birthday party.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Demonic_Gerbil
Ganking noobs is an exploit?
|
Hell, no. Nothing illegal about ganking noobs. I was just trying to help explain why it's against PvPers interests to remove anything from PvP Zones that encourages non-PvPers to go there.
Eco.
MArcs:
The Echo, Arc ID 1688 (5mish, easy, drama)
The Audition, Arc ID 221240 (6 mish, complex mech, comedy)
Storming Citadel, Arc ID 379488 (lowbie, 1mish, 10-min timed)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
[The Incarnate System is] Jack Emmert all over again, only this time it's not "1 hero = 3 white minions" it's "1 hero = 3 white rocks."
|
Quote:
Same reason you do not resent the demo man who carpeted the intelligence in TF.|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
The essential problem is that this treats PvP as a punishment for trying to get free toys, and it's a punishment that players voluntarily inflict on each other. Why would you not resent the people who punish you when they don't have to, even if they are allowed and encouraged to do so? The expectation that people will learn to enjoy the activity that is inflicted on them as punishment for trying to get what they want is, quite literally, perverse.
|
The same reason you don't get mad because the person you labeled goose caught you in duck duck goose.
Thats' the game.
If that is not a game you like you don't go to PvP zones because PvP is not for you.
Quote:
My apologies. I obviously wasn't clear enough, or maybe you're not a native speaker. I'll expand:|
Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
I must? How is it that I "must" know that? I've attacked unknown people in the past, just to find (afterward) that "Oh, it's you. New alt I see" frequently enough that, no, that's NOT something I "must" know.
|
Quote:
|
But as the game currently stands, you must know generally that any toon you meet in a pvp zone has to have a chance of being Noobly McNooblet, there just for badges. |
But as the game currently stands, you must know generally
- by 'generally' I mean that I'd think it likely that you would have an overall impression, not specifically at any one PvP situation. I meant , well, 'generally'
that any toon you meet in a pvp zone has to have a chance of being Noobly McNooblet, there just for badges.
'Have a chance of' - like as in possibilities. I'm not saying that ALL toons you see in a PvP zone are noobs, but that it's fairly obvious (I think, anyway), from the various admissions of this from various forumgoers (including myself) that noobs DO go to PvP zoners for badges and whatnot. hence, you cannot state with utter certainty that a toon you encounter in a PvP Zone is not someone who, if asked, would say 'No, I am NOT a PvPer'.
Eco.
PS maybe it's the modal 'must' that was the difficult word. I was using it in the sense of 'I think it's very highly likely' rather than as any enforced obligation.
TL;DR: Toons who go to PvP zones are not always going to fight back. You know this.
MArcs:
The Echo, Arc ID 1688 (5mish, easy, drama)
The Audition, Arc ID 221240 (6 mish, complex mech, comedy)
Storming Citadel, Arc ID 379488 (lowbie, 1mish, 10-min timed)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
[The Incarnate System is] Jack Emmert all over again, only this time it's not "1 hero = 3 white minions" it's "1 hero = 3 white rocks."
|
Quote:
I agree. The Shivans and nukes should be significantly lowered in strength and made attainable without having to risk PvP to get them.|
Originally Posted by SwellGuy
Um, yeah. I'll keep arguing with people who say the earth is flat also. Because they are wrong. The person who thinks they should get those PvE goodies without the risk of getting ganked is wrong. Period. Until they get a brain cell in their head and see that they are wrong and will continue to be wrong. They can argue until the sun burns out and they will still be wrong.
Shivans and Nukes come with the risk of PvP. Period. Any other expectation is selfish entitlement unreasonableness. Period. |
Same goes for all the badges in the PvP zones, too.
Eco.
MArcs:
The Echo, Arc ID 1688 (5mish, easy, drama)
The Audition, Arc ID 221240 (6 mish, complex mech, comedy)
Storming Citadel, Arc ID 379488 (lowbie, 1mish, 10-min timed)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
[The Incarnate System is] Jack Emmert all over again, only this time it's not "1 hero = 3 white minions" it's "1 hero = 3 white rocks."
|
In generall, can we at least stop doing this one:
PvPer: The existence of PvP in zones is natural law. Entering the zones to obtain a PvE reward is a voluntary choice.
PvEer: The existence of PvE rewards in zones is natural law. Attacking people in the zones is a voluntary choice.
It's disingenuous, and seeks to vindicate one's own actions as "natural" and the other's actions as "voluntary", when the actual design permits the choice to enter or not and the choice to attack or not.
SwellGuy, I'd be happy to concede your point with one modification. If Shivans and Nukes came with the requirement of PvP, if it were literally impossible to obtain these items without fighting another player character, there would be no problem in my eyes. A "risk" is something people try to avoid. I am still lost as to the benefit of rewarding avoidance of PvP in a PvP zone.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
Fundamentally different. Zero-sum game. Their win is necessarily your loss and vice versa. Not the case in PvP zones: both sides can "win" by obtaining shivans and nukes.|
Originally Posted by LISAR
Same reason you do not resent the demo man who carpeted the intelligence in TF.
|
Quote:
| The same reason you don't get mad because the person you labeled goose caught you in duck duck goose. |
Quote:
| Thats' the game. |
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
If you play chess by yourself you always win. PvErs in the PvP zones are trying to do that.|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
Fundamentally different. Zero-sum game. Their win is necessarily your loss and vice versa. Not the case in PvP zones: both sides can "win" by obtaining shivans and nukes.
Fundamentally different. Zero-sum game. You can't win without playing. See above. There are two games, being played simultaneously, on the same field. If everyone plays one game, everyone can win. If anyone plays the other game, the first game becomes harder. I just don't get why this is considered a good way to set up games. |
---
Even funnier analogy it's like going onto a paintball field because you heard there was a great view...but you don't plan on playing. You may not be there to play but there is a pretty good chance if those who are see you you will be shot.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LISAR
If you play chess by yourself you always win. PvErs in the PvP zones are trying to do that.
--- Even funnier analogy it's like going onto a paintball field because you heard there was a great view...but you don't plan on playing. You may not be there to play but there is a pretty good chance if those who are see you you will be shot. |
Not really, because the mechanics of those rewards are entirely PVE orintated, defeated mobs, use power on object, deliver captives. At no point during the process of getting nukes or shivians, are you required to defeat another player.
If the mechanics of those rewards required PVP there wouldn't be this whole issue.
Brawling Cactus from a distant planet.
Alternately: "These hot dogs are much better than the ones sold at the concession stand. Getting mobbed by linebackers is a risk you're willing to take to get that good hot dog, and you give your consent to that the moment you step onto the field (which has "warning: football game in progress" signs all around it)."
I understand the point you're making, and I agree that it's stupid that there are PvE rewards in a PvP zone, but the original intent was that the risk of being attacked or disrupted (and potentially defeated) by another player would balance the power of the rewards you were getting. That might've been the case for a while after I6 when the PvP zones were added and people were still trying it because it was new, but after a while most PvP zones became quieter and the PvEers going to get their temp powers became complacent and therefore now look at it as "unfair" or "rude" that someone decides to attack them while in one of these zones.
If all non-PvP specific badges were moved out of PvP zones, would that...
1) Help PvP? "Anyone in the zone obviously wants to PvP, so there will be one less thing to whine about."
2) Hurt PvP? "No new players are coming to PvP zones, because there isn't even the slightest incentive."
3) Have no effect on PvP? "The hardcore PvPers will always play, and no one else will ever join, regardless, so PvP can't be affected by this."
And a follow up question:
- Should the Devs provide any kind of incentive for Non-PVPers to try PvP out, even if it isn't badges?
Regarding the followup question: PvP recipes and the promise of being competitive with experienced PvPers (I14 and I13, respectively) were those "incentives" for non-PvPers to try PvP, and we can see how those turned out, can't we?
"One day we all may see each other elsewhere. In Tyria, in Azeroth. We may pass each other and never know it. And that's sad. But if nothing else, we'll still have Rhode Island."