The basic rule of any great pvp (open-pvp scenes)

Actually Rada , @Burzmali does have a point :



Imagine that the blue cubes represent resource nodes on Novia. These are available to PvE and PvP players alike- you are not forced to PvP to gather them. Each node has a finite number of resources but these renew themselves after a set period of time.

Now the pokegyms (the towers with pokemons on them) are PvP contention points. These do not affect access to the resource nodes (blue cubes) and the only way you can participate is to flag yourself for PvP by entering the area.

There is a set maximum number of defenders at the control point and an allowed number of attackers - each has a banner /color which represents their faction. There are actually 3 factions - Valor (red), Mystic (Blue) and Instinct (yellow). Valor and Mystic are the main rivals but Instinct ,despite being the smallest, gets to play because they usually ally with either side or stand on their own depending on the circumstances.

PvP and PvE coexist in Pokemon Go and PvP is completely consensual. The pokemons used in PvP are the same as the pokemons collected in PvE. You have bragging rights in how many PvP contention points your faction controls and this in no way interferes with the PvE system.

It's a much better and more complete PvP system than what we currently have in SOTA.

 

Thanks to all the contribution posts, really appreciate it.

Pokemon is not a good example imho. Agree on some things but disagree in others.

When we talk about a pvp game, it doesn't care if the game is all open world pvp or just some maps (like sota). The differentiation comes with the rules. We have two kind of games;

- Games with risk, aka a partial-loot, or full-loot, mechanics (eve, albion, dfo, mo, uo...and sota).

- Games with pvp options but zero risk.

It's not hard to guess where is Pokemon in that list.

Pokemon Go has some cool pvp features? yes, but is important to make the difference between these games, because the roots have been designed in base on these features. If we want bring some cool things to sota, we need take a look on all those games with some relation in their rules (partial-loot).

 

I'm not a huge fan of PvP loot. Not only does it discourage participation, but it also increase potential down-time.

Imagine if players didn't lose items but PvP players had "daily lives" per scene... let's call them "life token" and say we have 3 per scene.

• Every in-game 24 hours resets one of these tokens per each scene.
• A death from a player would make you lose a token for that scene.
• If you have zero tokens, you zone out of the scene and you can't get back in... until the day cycle gives you at least one more token.
• Towns would allow you to enter with no tokens but would prevent you from buying/selling goods to/with NPCs.
  • PvP towns would allow buying/selling goods to/with NPCs.
• Losing a duel does not make you lose a token.
• You gain a token by killing a player.
• Shardfalls and Towns could have a larger pool of tokens. POTs could have an amount set by the owner?

That allows players to:

• Lose/gain something (ie: access to a scene) without removing something from their characters.
• Give a sense of permanence with players presence in a scene.
• Gives support roles a bigger (more reasonable) role... by allowing them to focus their attention on those in their group with fewer tokens. Or risk your teammates from being kicked from the scene.
• Spread PvP in different scenes.

 

PvP should have risk.

First of all....remove the Anhks.....if somebody kills you....you're dead, Roll up a new character.

Keep the pvp flags....but if you flag for pvp, it becomes permanent.

Remove the forced pvp flag for pvp zones, but instead...require pvp flag to enter them in the first place with a global chat announcment that so and so just entered the pvp zone of 'x'

Anything else and you are just being a wuss.

 

It's in the first, just as much as SOTA is. Failing in PVP costs resources just like paying the Oracle does. You can be all high and mighty and crap on Pokemon Go for being a casual mobile title, but its PVP is fully consentual, carries some amount of risk, prevents most griefing and, most importantly, works. Port would do well to pay attention to more systems that work instead of pretending that the last 15-20 years never happened.

 

I will always go back to my emails received that promised that everything you mention here that is a item reward are against what the game has put out.

There is no need for me to repeat it but it is clear - they already break the promise skirting the issues saying it is not "forced"

But if there is ONE item that is a result of something that is done in a PvP zone (more resources already is but . . ) then they have broken their promises.

 

Buhuhuhu.
That's a topic for PvP ideas.
Do you have one?

I admit you have a point there.
Even if I hate to admit it ^^

 

Hi, here is My Opinion on PVP.

PVP is excellent when it has the correct risk/reward associated with it.

On Rewards:
The correct rewards are gold, Ranking, and Fame. A ranking system where consistently killing players at or above your level increases Fame, which is realized by the ranking, and a title and symbol.

On Risk:
PVP Risk is fun and satisfying when it presents a challenge. The correct challenge is fighting an enemy near your level. The correct risk is the loss of Rank and Fame.

An Adventure Level 85 avatar getting an EXP bonus PVEing while killing AL 40 avatars flagged PVP trying to gain EXP is flawed. This flaw then extremely discourages PVP by adding in the loss of the less experienced player's inventory, gear and gold.

It is not that we need to think of more rewards to incentivize PVP (and thereby creating the imbalance with PVE), simply reduce the risk for less experienced and newer avatars!

Specifically, let the only thing taken from the dead avatar be their trophy (skull, hand, spine, etc.) which they have the option to ransom for 1K gold. If the bones are not ransomed, the Fame and Ranking hit is higher.
Then add a ranking system with titles and symbols based on Fame. Create a leader board in town squares.
Finally, have the Oracle place a gold value scale, say 1K to 10K, on the 25 top ranked avatar's bones. The ransom these top ranked avatars would pay if killed would also scale.

This IMHO would make PVP great and fun with the current mechanics.

 

"We don't need incentive, PvP should happen naturally."

 

bottom line is here, is that no matter what idea you come up with for PVP, there will always be PVE complaining (people that dont want to pvp at all) so well call them non pvp players. Look around the game everthing you see was made for some non pvp guy/gal, we ask for one thing and then theres static over it heres anexample;

Non PVP person - we want to have emote dances and hats and clothes!!

Portalarium - no problem there you go!

PVP - we want to have some extra resources in pvp areas to help us pay off for all the weapons and armor, weve lost taking this risk.

Portalarium - hmm?

Non PVP - Never ever ever! they cant get something special while we cant! (while standing there in thier Kolbold Head pretending to be a Kolbold)

PVP - (standing there in thier armor thats missing peices and needs repairs) sigh! ok how bout we get more decent drops from things while we are in PVP to help pay off and fix this armor!?

Non - PVP Never ever ever they cant have more stuff than us (Standing there in thier butterfly wings and tiaras, pretending to be a princess!)

Ok so now you see where im going with this no matter what we come up with for PVP it will be shot down by Non pvp all the time, with stuff like,,, its not fair,

I wish they would put boxes of tissue in the add on store so i could hand it out!

 

To summarize: you want to have more than other and the other to not want the same.

Before you bring up risk vs reward... Win more and lose less then you won't need that something special that the others won't be gettting.

Bonus resources for the risk of losing that piece of armor sounds a lot like a trophy for losing. If you win you get double reward. Armor and resources.

If that summary isn't what you are saying you might want to give it another go because that's how it will be interpreted.

 

so many comments referencing other games, and incentives and tempting people to flags people will PVP. I would love a big picture explanation of where the Devs see PVP in the future. I think that could drive some excitement as well as some feedback from the community to help shape that broader vision.

Right now with the EXP/Resource incentives it really does not promote the PVP I would like to see. It tempts low level players for quick gains and leads to uneven battles and discontent. Personally I would rather see these gains taken away and a truly rewarding and fun system put in place.

I would like to see guilds that could controls PRT towns with discounted prices for guild/alliance members, over priced for enemies. Batttles for control over the town where players within a guild can choose to flag for the battle or go about their normal business without being harassed. A complex good vs evil system on top of that will also control vendor pricing depending on what faction owns a region.

Giving people who don't want to be bothered with PVP the ability to completely opt out whether their guild is at war or not. So people can be safe when they want to be safe and fight when they want to fight.

A title system for PVP and a leader board, bounties, etc. benefits that do not give PVP an edge on PVE but are still rewarding to someone that wants to PVP and see their name in lights.

PVP skill decay for bounty Kills, so if you are chaos and PK and get a bounty and someone hunts you down and kills you, you should have the same decay as PVE players fighting MOBs.

 

@blaquerogue The problem lies in how the majority of people perceive their own solutions and the impact it has.

Design 101: don't add things with the goals of compensating for an existing flaw.

"we want more resources to pay off expenses". BAD. Look at the expenses themselves and ask yourself why we have them in the first place, how we lose things and why we lose as much as we do. Only then, can you find a proper solution that won't piss off the rest of the player-base.

The "us vs them" is an illusion and a problem. Get rid of it. There is just "us"; the players. The moment you get someone who never PvP to actually get interested and participating in PvP is when you start going somewhere. And that goes both ways... PvP-to-PvE.

 

Empire building is only working when you get an edge over PVE ;-)
Otherwise there is no use in fighting to establish an empire.

 

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It should be an edge over other empires not over people who don't give a crap about your empire.

 

And another suggestion Would be to have ransom tied to Karma. If the oracle can protect her good people then the ransom sytem should be tied to a players Karma. High Karma players should have little to no ransom all the way to full loot for people that just don't deserve to have anything nice.

 

The key is to get people who don't want to fight other players involved in the conflict by letting them do what they want in the first place... which is to PvE. With enough interest, they might eventually engage in PvP.

This won't work in SotA (primarily because it has no factions), but Warhammer online had good ideas. They made a game where completing quests, events, dungeons and raids all over a given campaign contributed to the tug of war that allows PvP to take over territory which, then, makes more dungeons and raids available for those who PvE for their faction.

As you progress in levels, the areas you'd play in would progressively have smaller PvE "safe" areas in favour of larger PvP areas. PvE had an increasingly large variety of dungeons and raids and those were all instanced (so they didn't need as much space as the early levels).

This is the kind of "war effort" that SotA needs and then we'll have EVERYBODY on board for more elaborate PvP scenarios.

 

Really? Ever? You don't surf the Internet much I assume. Or read this forum much as it seems.

But I assure you that's at least the dumbest reply I got so far in this topic.

Now that we got this sorted lets get back to the real topic.
Did you ever play eve? The empires there only rise and fall because of greed.
This greed is fed by resources that are extremely important for the end game and can only be obtained in the space the player empires occupy. Every region has it's own special resource.

Now should it be the way you describe it?
Maybe. But ehonor and pvp for PvPs sake are dead. Ehonor was a lie from the beginning and the people that do PvP for PvPs sake are seldom.
Why did the 10% buff work? Because people are greedy and want an edge over their fellow PvE players that don't flag.
So you can either cater to the human nature to get pvp going or we can remove it from the game. Fancy titles and shiny medals will only get you so far.

 

well of course you got it all wrong, ill try to explain the pve person gets reward for nothing (participation trophy) the PVP person loses a lot more (armor and weapon prices if your not a crafter), meanwhile the PVE is making bank on sales and the PVP is losing bank on kills, "you cant win all the fights you get into" you will lose some and you will have to replace what is lost, so you go to the guy/gal that never partipates in PVP and buy thier wares (win all the time for the PVE) you can argue that all you want, PVE gets gains and PVP takes loses.

 

I understand what your saying but PVP will get nothing in this game as long as they keep listening to the ones that are afraid to particpate in it, I have gotten many people interested in PVP that would typically have nothing to do with it,

@Ristra, @Gix the solution is simple PVP can just wear thier untakable weapons and armor, and again we come to square one not worth the trip to PVP land.