What PvP Players can look forward to

The world is not over. DS didn't say there will be no emergent gameplay, nor would SotA completely lack open world PvP. These possibilities still lay on the table, and it seems most PvE players would accept these compromises:

* Full guild warfare. Warring guilds can kill opposing members at any time. Those that don't want to partake aren't forced to join those guilds.
* Open world PvP in any place at any time with players who've opted into a PvP flag.
* Full loot on death for those who have opted into PvP or partake in guild warfare.
* Special maps/instances where everyone in the map is flagged for PvP with special rewards in that instance to incentivize PvP.

 

I like everything here except the reference to special rewards for pvpers only. That is not acceptable. There needs to be a version of the event or quest that allows good pve players to get the same rewards. Otherwise pvpers will end up with an unfair balance of items and rewards.

 

This is something RG has suggested from the very beginning. There might be a dangerous area of the world where special crafting mats are, and going into that area would expose you to risk for the reward. Players who get those mats will craft special items or sell them.

Other players can likely buy those items from a vendor eventually, at the cost of gold. Those that took the risk to get those items will get gold.

 

Risk I have no issue with, there absolutely should be greater risk in certain areas. But not from pvpers ganking pve players . that would be non consensual. the risk must come from the environment/monsters etc.

 

If you're separating "PvE players," it's already a bad system. The system should be inclusive enough to work for everyone.

 

Nothing inherently wrong with PVP only rewards as long as it works the other way around too. Cool, powerful rewards from hard PVE only quests. Gives everyone a chance to play how they want and provides uniqueness.

Point is we have confirmation again that users will have a choice to play how they want. No one will be forced into PVP if they are not interested. That is a great starting point for a modern mainstream RPG.

 

I was under the impression that this was what Starr Long had said would not happen, hence all the anguish from yesterday. Did I get that wrong?

 

I don't agree with you. A reward one group gets could end up becoming so amazing and rare that its value is incredibly high. That is not acceptable.

 

Some people don't want direct PvP combat. I get that. In a war, there are civilians. They matter a lot. They help the war effort. They care tremendously about the outcome of the war.

If PvP is just about combat, if it's just about "PvP players," it's failed tremendously. While there's nothing wrong with this as a game. LoL already exists. And GTA. And dozens of FPS and other games.

I want to see a group of crafters get together with a group of PvPers and say "we really need to take castle xyz, it has access to some uber forge that makes mithral ingots." The game is about people working together to accomplish more than one could on it's own.

And I don't want "full loot" at all. The last thing I'd want to do is discourage casuals from participating. PvP should be about objectives - not individual rewards. Neither EVE nor lineage2 has full loot. (EVE has loot destruction). And no faction game that I know of does.

 

I'm 100% for guild vs guild warfare. I'm 100% against noob ganking.

However, checks would need to ensure that non-PvP guilded players are not casting beneficial spells like heals/whatever on a PvP flagged guild member in order to prevent abuse. Or at the very least flag the non-PvP guilded player as PK-able if they cast any spell that benefits/harms a PvP guilded player.

As to whether GvG full looting is permissible - let it be a setting agreed upon by the warring guild leaders prior to declaration of war.

I'm also opposed to the concept that certain loot can only be acquired either via PvP or PvE. All in-game items should be achievable without forcing one play style over another.

 

If players are present who are not a party to the guild war, there will always be problems, and inventive players always find ways to exploit the system to provide support for which you will be unable to prevent.

It is far better to remove non participants entirely, or to provide Open PvP so that you can retaliate without restriction, but Portalarium seem uninterested in Open PvP at this time.

In the PvP forum, I have a proposal that would address this issue. I invite you all to consider my proposal, and provide suggestions.

 

I've read your thread. You're basically asking for Trammel/Felucca split all over again. We all know how that ended up.

 

No, I'm asking for an Open PvP proof of concept prototype, which will either confirm or deny the degree of interest in Open PvP. If there is sufficient interest, then hopefully, a complete Open PvP Mode can be implemented that will not have the problems you indicate.

 

I don't think the issue is degree of interest. It certainly appears that a large percentage of the population posting on these forums indicate their desire for this style of gameplay. But Portalarium is also simultaneously attempting to appease the PvE crowd. I'm not certain how they plan on implementing this. It will be quite a balancing act to do so without alienating both camps. It would be nice to see more concrete information regarding this.

 

No. The rewards should be PvP specific. The only thing they shouldn't do is cause balance issues, but most of the rewards in PvP are usually just cosmetics etc.

Every damn item in the game doesn't have to be available to every single type of player or gameplay. If a reward like a shield is specific to a PvP event, then so be it. Why should someone who doesn't PvP have the opportunity at the same item.

Horrible reply.

 

Your openworld PvP point is not open world if you opt into it. It is the same as the Full guild warfare point.

@Primerib I like your post. Tho I do also like the currently proposed ransom looting of 1 or a few items.


I think the currently proposed model isn't terrible IF:
There are enough of the open or semi-open PvP Hexes to make the world feel realistic. If it becomes tiny pockets of magical PvP.. That's kinda lame. As some pointed out, it might become a kill the gatherer mini game.
Not saying that game might not be fun, but that shouldn't be the only way open PvP is implemented.

Again I ask, why not have it all.
If there are enough protected zones, not protected by invisible forces but protected by justified IN WORLD NPCs, guards, legionaires, private mining or forresting companies who control quarries and forests, Tribal folk who protect their forests etc.., Murder hunters, etc.. etc.. etc.. Heck, you could invent a monster type who spawn to only attack and punish murderous souls and drop no loot... n other possibilities)
Then you end up with, fully protected hexes,
Semi protected hexes,
Unprotected hexes.
Everyone gets access to every hex, Each hex set has it's varying degree of risk. No hex type has a certain resource exclusive to it.
Some dungeons could have guards at the entrance or some holding on to a tiny outpost inside..
Some dungeons could be guardless.

This makes the world more realistic. Protected by it's NPCs and not invisible forces.

If players want to access the more dangerous zones, they can do so in groups. This leads to more interesting game play as well imo.

Balance the world! don't restrict it.

 

PVP Mini games, pvp/pve rawards, pvp/pve locations , non-lootable corpses and other, pardon, bullshit of that kind kills the sandboxenes of the game and it's roots. People should decide by them selfes what to do, where to go, and how to play.

 

Place consequences on player actions, don't restrict/prevent them.

If I wanted to be told how to play, I'd be playing WoW.

 

The only time I've thought that kind of gear transfer made a lot of sense were in games like WoW or RIFT where PvE items were ridiculously OP. So in a game like that where you could bring an item that make one person fight as two, I completely understand the desire to add a risk to said item whereupon you can drop it. As a general rule, my preference would be for such items not to exist. I'm not 100% opposed to some item trading scenario, I just know that games I've played where steep penalties such as this existed (Lineage2 and Aion), it unquestionably made the game worse. People who would have been a part of PvP opted out.

 

It could..
I suppose it has a lot to do with the crafting scenario and how common / expensive items will be.
Another reason I support some kind of looting is because items won't be so important and valuable to players in terms of their magic and power but because of their lore..
Losing the item doesn't become as important as losing the trophy. Since it's history will be recorded.
It will be interesting once we get to testing.