PvP and Badge Hunting Just Don't Mix

Perfectly reasonable analogies, for the most part, with one slight twist. Someone is paying you, and anyone else who wants to, to play chess games to a draw or take photographs of scenic vistas. It'd be ridiculously easy money if only everyone would cooperate, but some weirdos keep trying to win at chess or play paintball. Even though you don't really like chess much, and didn't even bring a paintball gun. It's bizarre.

In an odd way, there are a lot of real world situations that are analogous to this design. There are plenty of situations where, if everyone cooperates, the rewards are quite good, but if anyone doesn't the payout is much less. What ends up happening depends on how each individual values the relative benefits of cooperation and competition. When those values are subjective, cooperators and competitors end up seeing each other as crazy and unreasonable.

The good news is that the whole mess can be put to rest forever through any number of possible changes. The bad news is that it seems like a lot of people on both sides have gotten used to the current situation and don't want it to end: cooperators, because when they can successfully avoid the competitors the reward is insanely good and they don't want to see that taken away; and competitors, because they see any change as caving to the entitlement complex of the cooperators. The gripping hand is that unless the developers decide they don't like the current situation, the argument will go on forever. Since they haven't made any move to change it yet, I guess they like it just fine; I've laid out my reasons why I don't as best I can, and trying to bring people who aren't devs around to my way of thinking basically accomplishes nothing either way. So I guess, in the end, I'm not doing much here.

Of course I'll keep arguing, futile though it may be, because someone is wrong on the internet. And so will all y'all. It's a symmetric zero-sum PvP game. :P

You forgot the "don't get killed by other players" part. It's the chute in your ladders.

I would LOVE if people would stop with the generalities. Yet there you go again. I am not a PvPer but I accept the zones as they are. Yet you list only 2 types of people: the PvEer and the PvPer. Yet if I am not a PvPer why is my position listed as the PvPer view?

It really doesn't matter if you accept my point. The devs set up the zones the way they are and that's the way they work. You might have to PvP to get your shivans/nukes/badges/stealth power. You might not.

You claim avoidance is rewarded. This is only partially true. If I defeat you in a PvP zone I get rewarded. I might get your meteor fragment(s) or your freed scientist guy if you have any. I might get a PvP recipe. And by time you get back I have already moved on. So truthfully there is more reward to PvPing in the PvP zone than not.

So your assertion that the reward is for avoiding PvP is wrong. The reward is in not losing in PvP.

There's only one game in the PvP zones. Others trying to play a different game are cheaters.

Right, there'd be the "Wah! We cannot get Shivans/Nukes/stealth powers or badges without PvPing! The devs are making us PvP!"

Shivans and nukes are not required to play the game. Should the devs setup a store where you could buy them for 100 million inf or 500 merits?

An entirely optional, and quite often not even applicable occurrence.

It does not effect the reward, gaining a shivian shard without PVPing does not grant an inferior reward than if you'd fought ten people during the process.

My answer would be that getting what you want out of a battle situation without actually having to fight is a perfectly acceptable, some might even say wise, solution.

If I escape from a player when they have beaten me down to a sliver of health, I still escape.
If I escape from a player when they first sight me, I still escape.
If I 'escape' from them before they even see me, I still escape.
Why are either of the first two superior to the third?

To put it another way, why should I be content with that sort of reducion of my options for avoiding defeat in a PvP zone?

If I can ninja through a PvE mission, I trade the rewards for defeating the mobs on the way in for avoiding the risk of being defeated by them.
If I can ninja through a PvP mission, I trade the rewards for defeating the players on the way in for avoiding the risk of being defeated by them.

If you can get them without PVPing, then they aren't PVP rewards.

You are right not getting killed is optional. If someone fights you you can just die and loose your progress. Smart people choose to fight or run though. Because IT DOES effect your progress.

Fair point. The terminology is incorrect; the division is between those who place the onus of responsibility on the cooperator or the competitor. In fact, both are making choices, and neither is forced to act - nor can either dictate the response of the other to their actions.

Nothing I can disagree with here.

As long as even one person decides to PvP, this is all true. If nobody chooses to PvP, surely you will agree that the zone rewards that do not require PvP to obtain become much easier to obtain. Otherwise, the "risk of PvP" wouldn't be nearly the balancing factor it's claimed to be.

Again, this assumes that even one person has chosen to PvP at all - which is by no means an unreasonable choice for that person. It also assumes that people can choose not to lose in PvP as easily as they can choose to avoid PvP. The last I heard, that was not necessarily the case: I was given to understand that AT, sets, build, and player skill had something to do with it. Choosing to avoid PvP, on the other hand, apparently involves... resetting your alarm clock. And then getting the reward without the risk. As the developers apparently intended.

So you agree that the during the game play process, interaction with other players has an entirely negative aspect for the initial player?

Avoiding PvPers is not losing in PvP.

However failing to avoid PvP and then getting mad and throwing a fit is just poor sportsman ship. Expecting the other players to just let you win is poor sportsman ship.

The point of the Shivian and Missile runs are to get the prize. Running and avoiding PvP is a perfectly acceptable option.

They are PvP rewards because PvP effects them not because PvP is required.

If you get in and no PvPers are around you win.
If you get in and don't get spotted by PvPers and finish you win.
If you get in and manage to flee from a fight and finish you win.
If you finish you win.

If you leave the zone without your prize you loose.

Nope.

If you team up and run the course it is quiet rewarding.

If you duck combat and escape it can be a bit of a thrill.

If you win a fight and get your goal it's awesome.

If none of that appeals to you you are in the wrong place.

All of these have a negative aspect as they all require a loss of time. The first scenario only loses time if acquiring nukes though.

If that's all you care about you are in the wrong zone.

PvP zones are for competitive fun.

If you're goal in game is to avoid player interaction going to the zones with the most possible interaction seems excessively counter productive.


Also how does it reduce time for nukes. Two people can clear groups much faster then one.

Ahh but that's not how the mechanics work on those rewards work.

If PvP zones were purely for competitive fun, then these rewards would be based on a PvP mechanic, like WoW honor system.

Correct me if I'm wrong on the mechanics, but the Warburg nuke scientists reward a code only to the person who rescues them?

Which means an additional trip to a deposit point per code, per person on the team, assuming of course you're being fair with each other.

You consider it disingenuous becuase of your bias. For you there is only: either no PvE reward in the PvP zones or you must PvP to get them.

Let's review.

4 zones where you can PvP and PvE (Bloody Bay, Sirens, Warburg, Recluse's Victory)
arena where you can only PvP.
2 zones where you can neither PvP nor PvE (Ouroboros and Pocket D)
7 villain zones where you can PvE (Mercy, Port Oakes, Cap, Sharkhead, Nerva, St. Martial, and Grandville)
At least 20 hero zones where you can PvE (Atlas Park, Galaxy City, Perez Park, Hollows, Skyway, Steel Canyon, Striga Island, Croatoa, Brickstown, Founders Falls, Eden, Dark Astoria, Crey's Folley, Terra Volta, Peregrine Island, Boomtown, Faultline, Independance Port, Talos Island, the many Shard Zones)
2 co-op zones: Cimeroa, RWZ

Is it unreasonable to ask that PvP be removed from the 4 PvPvE zones just because someone wants shivans and nukes and cannot stomach the possibility of getting defeated without any penalty but time spent? PvPers would like to PvP on demand in the other 29+ zones if they could have their way but they get (rightfully so) shut down when they suggest that.

Or to put it another way. There are non-PvPers who think the Shivans/nukes risk of PvP is not unreasonable.

So here are the options:
1. Overhaul the game to remove shivans/nukes or deny without PvP which will result in complaints
2. Overhaul the game to remove PvP from getting shivans/nukes which will result in complaints
3. Leave it as is and expect people to accept the risk but there will always be people who will complain about it
4. Other but would have to involve changing the game which will still result in people complaining

Which future game enhancement that you want would you like to forfeit so they can change it so different people can complain about it and we can have these ridiculous threads on that subject?

Nah, I consider what I said disingenuous because what I said was disingenuous. I'm sure you're being sincere - you just don't evaluate the relative importance of various considerations the same way I do. Funny how that can happen, when different people meet and interact.

Yup, that's completely unreasonable.

It'd be hard not to notice! I already discussed that. I have two counter-arguments: 1) Shivans/Nukes are too strong to be gated by just the "risk" of PvP, and 2) players shouldn't be trusted with ensuring that the risk/reward ratio is maintained. In the case of AE farms, that trust was totally betrayed, and in this case, upholding the ratio means being hated for doing what you're supposed to do.

You know that I'm pulling for option 1. In the right context, I think it'd do a lot for the player community in the long term, at the cost of losing some players who thrive on toxicity and/or broken reward systems. In all seriousness, would you quit over a zone redesign?

Issue 13. You know, the one that was supposed to pave the way for a strong and vital PvP community, and instead strangled it in its crib while spawning more and more ridiculous threads than redesigning the zones could ever have any hope of doing. If the devs can waste that much time on doing the wrong thing, they can afford to spend some time doing the right thing.

Well, what I consider the right thing, anyway. :P

I wouldn't quit over anything but a few catastrophic events. But I have also never been QQing over the PvP zones.

During CoV beta the PvPer vs non-PvPer war was raging hard and I was vilified by both sides for pointing out the errors of each group. Amusingly the anti-PvP crowd irritates me far more because of their self-righteous manure.

I13 isn't supposed to be the final PvP stop but even assuming it is I agree with it has hammered PvP down hard. Of course I felt it was a mistake from the get go to change it because I understood from CoV beta that the PvP/anti-PvP divide is about philosophy not game mechanics. Even if they had ideal game mechanics I cannot imagine PvP would still be anything but a niche activity in our game.

My view: Why waste any more developer time on PvP concerns?

As to my own backyard, they keep messing up the markets with their "fixes" because they are tilting at the windmills of making the anti-market crowd happy users of the markets. It isn't ever going to happen either.

They need to stop trying to please everyone with the niche features before they annoy everyone.

100% agreed. Just like badging, base building, RP, AE authoring, etcetera. The thing that those other activities have in common that PvP does not is that a significant chunk people outside the niche hate people inside the niche because of that one time that a PvPer made a decision that made their life harder. Then people inside the niche snipe at people outside of the niche for saying silly things in anger. That's not a healthy place for a niche activity! It leads to forum drama, and forum drama leads to a lack of dev love.

Or badges, or bases, or AE, or costumes...

The non-snarky answer: because it attracts players, and developer actions affect how many players it attracts and what kind.

There are a number of things you can do with niches. You can make changes that people inside the niche ask for, which is generally not a terrible idea because they know what bugs them. Or you can make changes that people outside the niche ask for, on the grounds that making these changes might attract people to the niche. Or you can leave it as is and just bribe people to try the niche. Or if you're really wacky, you can use players in the niche as the risk in a risk/reward system, thus making them the enemy of everybody else. That one's fantastic.

Incidentally, I do agree that people who complain about market PvP are silly. I also think that marketeers get blamed for a lot of problems that actually have more to do with systemic supply issues, and the freedom people have to make bad decisions, than their own activities. And I advocate some remedies for those systemic issues that would be pretty unpopular among the general population. I can do this because I'm not a dev.

You aren't factoring in different people's definitions of 'reward', and what they consider the limit of justifiable 'work' they're prepared to do in order to get that reward.

I consider shivans and nukes to be a reward.

I consider the PvE hoops I have to jump through (downing turrets, leading scientists out of the web etc) to be a more than fair amount of 'work' to go through, including any PvE combat with mobs I encounter whilst doing it, considering their strength.

I consider ANY PvP where my opponent fights me to be too onerous to bear. At that point the rewards cease to be of sufficient value to me to bother trying to get, irrespective of the fact that they are very powerful.

I do not consider PvP IOs valuable enough to make me want to PvP.

Eco.

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."

True, but there are a couple of differences, both mechanical and psychological.

1. Anonymous vs. attributable. When prices are high, people say "hm, those are going for a lot." When PvP is heavy in the zones, people don't say "hm, it's pretty hot in here." They say "that guy right there shot me!"
2. Impersonal vs. personal. It's a lot easier to get excited about a guy shooting you (okay, a guy making his pretendy man shoot your pretendy man) than it is about financial maneuvering. This disparity extends to real life - consider the reaction to white collar criminals vs. murderers (not that I'm saying marketeers or PvPers are either).
3. Symmetry. In general, people are on the market to sell stuff and buy stuff. I don't suspect marketeers of jacking up prices for the hell of it - they're doing it to make money, which is something I might do in their place. I might suspect a PvPer of ganking me several times in a row for amusement value alone, though, and if I'm solely interested in shivans or nukes or badges or what have you then there's a definite lack of empathy on my part.
4. Alternative paths. There's nothing on the market that you can't get elsewhere. For considerably more time and effort in some cases, but it's there, and that releases potential tension.

Then again, I don't get exposed to crazy anti-market people much, so I don't know what passes around that crowd.