I can understand where you all are coming from who want to have PvP, the same as you can understand and appreciate the necessity for Non-PvPer's to have their space as well. While we all want our cake, and want to eat it too, we realize that can't happen. So, we must reach a pleasant medium on this content in order for the game, as a whole, to appeal to all players.
Immersion, for PvP players, involves being able to kill other people as a course of action, or reaction(whatever the case may be). Immersion for those who are opponents to a PvP system, is becoming involved with the gaming world in more peaceful ways. A game does not have to cater to every facet of reality to provide immersion. There is nothing "realistic" or immerive about being killed 5 times by the same person because they are camping your body, or camping the route you have to take to get where you want to go to actually enjoy the game. On the other hand, there is nothing realistic about Eutopia either.
As a general rule, we are paying 15$, approximately, for the right to play a game that will provide us with what we perceive as our own personal "Eutopia". The only problem is that a developer must design their games to acheive the middle ground, or go for broke and shoot for the extreme. Investing too heavily in either extreme, may not please everyone. Which could impair its longevity. I find nothing wrong with having seperate, but equal zones in the same world that cater to either camp: PvP & Non-PvP.
With 15 years being the average experience of Icarus' development team, I would hardly think they are going to make PvP the primary fuel for role-play in FE, IMO.
Relying on the ability to kill your fellow player is not immersive IMO. Having proper setting, customization, atmosphere, emotes, appropriate skills, discovery and the like create immersion for me. Appearance is everything. But, that is only my opinion, which may or may not be shared by every person, and definitely not by all fans of PvP.
We are a divided population, and will continue to butt-heads over this concept in whatever we desire from a game. I am totally for seperate but equal zones, as evidenced in my statement above. So, this means PvP and Non-PvP zones that have the same/equivalent content available to players. I cannot see this being a problem at all, since if it is only the PVP part that PvPers want, what do they care if the non-PvPer's have the same content availabel to them? You all go kill yourselves in whatever fashion you desire in the PvP areas. The casual gamers(and I mean casual in the way we play) will enjoy the game at our own pace and on our own terms.
But, I do think we can all agree that even PvPer's don't want to engage in PvP all the time. In fact, what is that true breakdown of how often PvPer's would actively want to engage in PvP? I certainly don't know, but I would wager that it isn't even close to 60% of the time they are online playing. In fact, I imagine it doesn't even approach 50%. Which basically means that all that fuss was for a system that goes 50% or more wihtout being utilized in gameplay, that then undergoes another division when you consider PvPer's and Non-PvPers. By then, you have spent a great deal of coding time and resources on a game system that is probably not even utilized at 40% capacity even half of the time. This is considering games that do not feature PvP as primary content. I thought the PvP system in SWG was an excellent system, since it gave me the option to explore every feature available to either Rebels or Imperials, but I never had to fear having to engage in PvP, since I was neutral. But, as far as the others go, we can see how attractive they are. I don't think FE will fall into the other category. Icarus intends to design a game that all players will want to play. I am all for a PvP system like the one in SWG.
We all like to relax or explore without having to watch everything in the game surroundings. What is more, you would think that PvP could be a flag at character creation that can never be switched. You would think that would satisfy the PvPers. But no. PvPer's would argue that they like to relax as well, and don't always want to be PvP enabled everywhere they go. And I can't blame them, that is why we play games. But, it begs the question that Pvper's want their cake, and they want to eat it too. Basically, that means you want to play in the Non-Pvper's world and you want to play in your own PvP world, and then you want the Non-PvPers to suffer under your terms if we want the content that is available in your areas(better resources, higher quality resources, etc..).
That is clearly not a fair and balanced approach at all.
I don't intend to make a big "stink" if you will on this topic. I only believe in fair and equitable game play. I'm surrounded by reality everyday. That doesn't mean I want to play in it too!
I'm going to laugh so hard if there's a 'non-pvp' mode/flag in this game. The great equalizer is the deformable terrain. I can see it now.
Non-PvPer: Hah! you can't kill me! I'm just gonna follow you around and piss you off! PvPer: Uh huh. Hey, what's that over there? Non-PvPer: Wha? PvPer: *places a couple grenades under non-pvper* Kaboom! PvPer: Oh, hey looks like you're stuck in a hole! Here, I'll go train a few powerful mutants into your hole to help you get out
I think there should be a PvP flagging system, but the flags being hardcore PvP and softcore PvP. There should be rewards and bonuses to XP and such for being hardcore, but when you're killed by a player, your corpse could be looted to some degree, among other risks. On softcore, you can still be killed by another player, but there's no penalty, you just respawn somewhere with all your stuff. However, you don't get as much XP or as good loot, or your weapons are less powerful or something.
Drycat, I'm having a hard time trying to visualize equal content PvP and non-PvP zones. I understand the logic behind it, but imagine the following scenario... an abandoned mine is found containing extremely high quality resources. Since zones would offer equal rewards, a mine would be placed in both a PvP zone and a non-PvP zone. This is how I see the situation playing out:
(PvP zone) Clans battle for control of this mine. If a rival clan is harvesting resources, gather your friends and destroy them. This way, only one clan is harvesting the resource at a time, or an alliance of clans. It also creates a PvP hotspot that you can go to if you need some action. Eventually, the mine runs out and clans scramble to find the next resource.
(Non-PvP zone) One clan finds the resource, and the location eventually gets out. Multiple hostile clans gather and harvest resources. Nasty things are said between enemies, but they continue to harvest side by side, growling at eachother. Lets assume that somehow, only one person can harvest at a time. How do you determine who gets to harvest? First come first serve? Thats no fun. The only reasonable method to control this seems to be combat, which leads to a PvP zone.
So how do you make a resource rare in a non-PvP zone and make sure not every single clan can get it? Just putting strong NPCs outside won't work, since you'll have multiple clans trying to take it over anyway. Also, if you can get the resource easily in a non-PvP zone, why even travel to the PvP one? Risk (PvP) leading to reward seems to be the easiest answer here.
Originally posted by sinoth (Non-PvP zone) One clan finds the resource, and the location eventually gets out. Multiple hostile clans gather and harvest resources. Nasty things are said between enemies, but they continue to harvest side by side, growling at eachother. Lets assume that somehow, only one person can harvest at a time. How do you determine who gets to harvest? First come first serve? Thats no fun. The only reasonable method to control this seems to be combat, which leads to a PvP zone.
Devise a faction system if you are concerned about that situation. The point of the matter is that you, as a PvP player, have your own resource available to you in a PvP zone that you can fight over and a clan can stake sole claim to. So, basically what we are saying is the same thing again: PvPers want their cake, and they want to eat ours too. Here we differ on our own personal versions of what Eutopia is for us.
It's a cut and dry scenario to me. Let people fight over the deposit of minerals in the Non-PvP area, if there is going to be a PvP by area. No one person, faction or group will ever be able to claim ownership over that deposit.
Secondly, PvP by zone is an alternative to all out PvP. Again, you are trying to manage valuable resources with a PvP system. See my last post as to why the content should be equally spread out.
Originally posted by sinoth So how do you make a resource rare in a non-PvP zone and make sure not every single clan can get it? Just putting strong NPCs outside won't work, since you'll have multiple clans trying to take it over anyway. Also, if you can get the resource easily in a non-PvP zone, why even travel to the PvP one? Risk (PvP) leading to reward seems to be the easiest answer here.
Again, it is in a non-pvp zone. Every individual who can manage to discover the area, get inside and mine, will be able to do so. There will be no control of the resource. Anyone who is able to get to it, spend the time necessary to harvest the minerals, will be able to do so. And the risk vs. reward thing is what PvPers think makes their requests for additional content/reward above what the peaceful player wants, a justification for making them better off than the other half.
And, why do you travel to a PvP zone? To engage in PvP of course hehe Which is what this is all about isn't it? Or, is it more about the fact that PvPers want to kill everyone, willing or unwilling, combat worthy or not-combat worthy? And maintain an advantage, be it economic or non-economic, over the player base that doesn't want to engage in PvP as well as the player base that does? Why is that so hard to swallow? You want the best the game world has to offer because you desire to kill other people to get it, and you want gameworld content that is unavailable to anyone else but people who choose to PvP. (PvPers want their cake, and they want to eat it too. that's why this topic even exists)
The majority of people play games to relax and get away from the real world. Competition, posing, "politcking", insinuation, greed, hate, inequity, upper-class middle-class lower-class.. I suppose each of us has a list of things we hate about real-life. Competition is unfortunately, a very annoying component of any business structure/heirarchy, and encompasses quite a number of listed and unlisted items in my brief list, if you will. Trifling, arrogance, posing hehe ( I like that one, and it's fun to watch people do it too! ) are just some of the things that fall in with competition. I play MMPORGs to grow my character, to discover things, and do it at my own pace. I don't expect to pay 15$ a month to have to compete with other players to have fun, or enable my character to experience the game world or grow, as it were. My veiw may be shared by many others like me. Just as your veiw may be shared by many others like you. That's what it boils down to.
IMO, rewarding PvP in this manner will only stratify, and eventually alienate your player base. There is just so much required competition, mandatory choices, etc.. that people are willing to stomach.
I'm not out to brow-beat this concept on anyone. The fact is that there is a middle ground that will please or not please everyone. And it is this ground that creates topics like these hehe
I'm for a full pvp system ONLY if there is some concequence to the killing of another. As I am for the looting of pvp kills, but if you loot another charcters body you are flagged to that player for 14 days (or so) and he can track you down and loot it all back. (and to prevent greiving if you dont log in at all within the 14 days it automatically goes back)
Ok drycat, makes sense I think a split PvP/non-PvP resource system would be fine. There are definitely those days some of us would want to work on making that new gun we found plans for without risking getting our brains blown out.
There is another balancing mechanism in place I didn't realize at first that will keep the PvPers happy... in the previous scenario I mentioned, imagine if the resource was finite. After so much is mined, it goes dry, and another pops up somewhere. In the PvP zone, if you have a strong clan and find it early on, you have the potential to defend it well and get say 90% of the resource inside. In the non-PvP zone, you can mine easily without danger, however everyone else can too, so you might end up with only 40% or so of the resource. This satisfies a want for risk -> reward, while still keeping the non-PvPers happy. (I think )
I dunno, have the people who are complaining about full PvP ever played a game that actually was full PvP?
Yes, actually. Face of Mankind is approaching the end of its open beta currently, but a few months ago it underwent a brief period of a few weeks or so in which it had unrestricted PVP. It was a disaster - there was nothing to keep players in check. The penalty system did not restrain griefers, since outlaws will be outlaws regardless, and the vast majority of players quit after being "ganked". There were no clans per se, just many different factions, and being a member of one did not stop enemy or even neutral players from killing you, regardless of where you were.
Looking at the context of this game, I do not see how PvP can reasonably be restricted in frontier areas. As an explorer, it will likely be in my interest to avoid other players altogether. There must, however, be civilized (or something close) areas where players start out, and they must be kept secure by design, be that auto-turrets or complete pacification. It has been demonstrated many times in the past that players do not police one another in online games.
----------------------------------- Go you must. No guest shall stay in one place for ever. Love will be lost if you sit too long at a friend's fire.
It has been demonstrated many times in the past that players do not police one another in online games.
Oh so true. They may not police, but they sure do bully.
It is a sad fact these days, but players cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Just look at the mess that is the World of Gankcraft PvP system.
Rules have to be enforced, butts have to be spanked, in short PvP will have to be controlled or the game will be ruled by a small group of iron fisted, self-monkey slapping, counter-strike junkies.
I think one major way to police the PvP gankers is a bounty system which we have discussed many times on this forum. Send NPCs after people, hunting them down, as well as have a bounty listing for players to hunt down others.
Waiting For: something good Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
Originally posted by Edgtho Originally posted by sinothI dunno, have the people who are complaining about full PvP ever played a game that actually was full PvP?
Yes, actually. Face of Mankind is approaching the end of its open beta currently, but a few months ago it underwent a brief period of a few weeks or so in which it had unrestricted PVP. It was a disaster - there was nothing to keep players in check. The penalty system did not restrain griefers, since outlaws will be outlaws regardless, and the vast majority of players quit after being "ganked". There were no clans per se, just many different factions, and being a member of one did not stop enemy or even neutral players from killing you, regardless of where you were.
Looking at the context of this game, I do not see how PvP can reasonably be restricted in frontier areas. As an explorer, it will likely be in my interest to avoid other players altogether. There must, however, be civilized (or something close) areas where players start out, and they must be kept secure by design, be that auto-turrets or complete pacification. It has been demonstrated many times in the past that players do not police one another in online games.
That face of mankind beta was awful, just people standing around pointing their guns at each other and making threats and a bunch of people claiming to control the faction you were part of telling people not to shoot, then someone shoots, all hell breaks loose , people kill each other, rinse, repeat.
Although I found it hillariously funny one time running up to a cop.
"HEY HEY! SOmeones being attacked, quick come come!!"
And this guy runs after me , i lead him outside and point him to a bunch of boxes, he goes looks behind them and I blast him in the back of the head and kill him.
LoL.
But unfortunately the majority of players weren't rping or being clever with the pvp, they'd just abuse the lifts and teleporters and other stuff , logged in a few times and then gave up with it.
PvP has to be done carefully to be an enjoyable experience.
Which is why I personally think more FPS orientated, as opposed to stats and stats and stats, so only the people who work it out and have the best equipment and 'best defences' and all that krap win.
Drycat im sorry to bring you up again but i can't quite understand you. First you say you arnt being hostile but the statment the pvper want their cake and they want to eat ours too... thats pretty hostile. but getting back on topic and not starting a flame... If you make equal areas with equal content then the pvp areas will not be used for that content but only for PvP killings. if you can saftly get to point A no one would run the risk of going the dangerous way when they could lose something valuable. the PvP minerals would be empty because you could just sit afk in the resorces in the non pvp area for hours Please try to explain it again and how its possible. I know i sound mean but i think your idea (to the small extent i understand it) is not supurb. sorry about the semi flame
Originally posted by Venalicius Drycat im sorry to bring you up again but i can't quite understand you. First you say you arnt being hostile but the statment the pvper want their cake and they want to eat ours too... thats pretty hostile. but getting back on topic and not starting a flame... If you make equal areas with equal content then the pvp areas will not be used for that content but only for PvP killings. if you can saftly get to point A no one would run the risk of going the dangerous way when they could lose something valuable. the PvP minerals would be empty because you could just sit afk in the resorces in the non pvp area for hours Please try to explain it again and how its possible. I know i sound mean but i think your idea (to the small extent i understand it) is not supurb. sorry about the semi flame
No flame intended, or taken. As the old saying, you want your cake and you want to eat it too.. is just referring to someone who wants the best of two different worlds. No flame is intended. I just like old sayings hehe
And, it is appropriate in the circumstance since PvPer's want to relax in the Non-PvP world. And to force Non-PvPers to enter PvP areas in order to experience content that is otherwise not available to them, just so they can kill them. And once they have had enough PvP, PvPers want to relax in the confort of not having to PvP any longer, so they wander back into a non-PvP area.
No flame as I can see it, but sorry if it was interpreted this way. I try to "tip-toe through the tulips" as much as I can hehe I don't like being offended by others comments either.
So anyway, I'll approach this by first saying that PvP is not the premiere system of an online RPG. I think we can all safely agree that it is not the primary focus of gameplay.
Secondly, the population is split into PvPers and Non-PvPers, and part-time PvPer's. I'll even go one step further and say that even hardcore PvPers don't PvP half the time(unless they're "ganking" pvpers). (Refer to previous posts about this). So who knows how often a part-time PvPer goes at it. Basically the population probably spends the least amount of their time engaged in PvP actions. All out PvP is just a "pandoras" box. As quite a few other forum members have suggested, all out PvP is just plain foolish and unmanageable.
Personally, I am for people who want to engage in PvP choose the option at character creation. But, many PvPers don't want to be engaged in PvP all the time. Hell, I don't blame them. So, this is another facet that makes me ask that question that you took as an offensive statement. Basically, they want to engage in PvP, get rewarded for it, and then come back to the Non-Pvp world like nothing happened and relax in its comfort. So, anyway, on to the next segment...
So, why is it fair for people who engage in PvP to experience more game content (as in access to minerals, areas with mobs that drop better loot, etc..) than people who choose not to? I really don't want to have to copy and paste the last part of my old post, so I'll just recap it briefly:
1) You have PvP and Non-PvP areas. They both contain similiar content. Meaning, you can't find things in PvP areas that you could not also find in Non-PvP areas.
2)Why do people want PvP? To kill each other. There needs be no incentive for it, if that is what it is for. So, why do people expect a reward for killing someone in addition to what they can loot off their body?
The problem is that PvPers are not just out for what they say is the primary intent behind PvP(role-playing, killing a pesky person, etc...). PvPers not only want to kill each other, they want to be rewarded for it above what Non-PvPers are rewarded. They want some additional incentive for doing it.
When, really they claim their incentive is that it makes for more realistic role-playing. Now, to me, that is confusing. They claim that enabling PvP is more realistic and enhances roleplaying, yet they want to be rewarded above what they could loot off the other players body, if that is even possible.
Why do you need that extra reward if PvP is for the additional role-playing element?
Why is that? I say if PvPers really want to just kill each other, more power to you. It is when there is an expectation of an additional reward for doing so, be it economic or additional content(like better minerals etc ) above that which is available to players who don't want to engage in PvP, is where I have a problem. That basically says to me that PvPers want Non-PvP types to be forced into entering a PvP zone. That just means more people for them to kill.
Again this gets back to people trying to justify using a PvP system to manage quality resources, better loot, etc.. You're just going to end up pissingoff or alienating that part of the player base that doesn't want to have to be forced to PvP in order to have access to the same content (higher quality resources, better loot drops, etc..) as PvPers.
3)By having the same content available in both areas, PvP and Non-PvP, you can preserve a balance. The difference being that the resources in the mine in the Non-PvP area will be mined by whoever can get to it, so each individual will only a get a fraction of what could be obtained in a PvP area where one or several individuals stake sole claim to the resources and kill anyone coming near the place. Those individuals in the PvP area get much more than what those in the Non-PvP area are able to. But, a balance of sorts is preserved between PvP and Non-PvP content.
I don't even believe that providing an incentive to PvPers above what they can loot off their victims' body is even fair, but it is a middle ground.
I think I have clearly elaborated and beat this point up enough in this thread. So, I don't want to bore people by posting more of my comments from previous posts. But I don't mind clarifying my intent if I need to
I really don't consider that old saying I used about the cake as an offensive statement. (So, if you like, I'll just say that PvPer's want the best of both worlds in the future) Sorry about that !
In fact, the posters that use the red eyes.. now that is what I consider hostile. They state that no one should think they are being hostile, but they mention the audience they are addressing and include the little red smiley with the flame on the face. But anyway hehe I just think perhaps this is a misunderstanding.
Thanks for clarifying im not sure i 100% agree with you, but to each his own. and about your comment. i read it angrilly for some reason hehe maybe im just tired
Originally posted by Venalicius Thanks for clarifying im not sure i 100% agree with you, but to each his own. and about your comment. i read it angrilly for some reason hehe maybe im just tired
No worries. My comments only suggest a possible middleground that will neither please or displease PvPers and Non-PvPers.
As this thread's mass shows, PvP is the hottest topic and hardest device to implement in a way that will placate the playerbase. Aside from the hardcore extremists who think that any PvP ruins a game or that only hardcore free-for-all PvP is acceptable, there are many camps in between. I think that the largest section supports the idea of PvP as long as it's implemented right. The largest complaints seem to be when another's fun is put at risk by repeated killing that borders on griefing, and how the game mechanics are radically altered/nerfed/fixed as a result of PvP feedback.
I woke up today and im feeling a lot more coherent and i just took a shower (where all great ideas come from) And i had an idea. Give everyone a PvP meter. When your in a "PvP" area then your meter gains PvP points and when your in a "Safe" area then you gain Safe points... im not sure how much sense im making but.... lemme try to explain you all. Everyone would have a meter starting like this NPvP[||----------------]PvP All the way safe. And in order to PvP You would have to spend time in a PvP area and death would bring you back to NPvP. so no ganking someone over and over because they have death penalties. PvPers that want to PvP everywhere would simply have to spend time in a PvP area for a long time before looking for other likeminded killers in Safe areas. And those who want safty would have to spend time in safe areas (Hopefully RPing) before that long journey. Comments questions?
Sorry, but that sounds just like a PvP flagging system except the flags aren't fast. I think it would be annoying to have to wait around in a PvP area just to PvP. Having an instant on flag that turned off after death would accomplish the exact same thing. The only thing different from the flagging system is that with your meter, people would eventually HAVE to PvP in certain areas. Which is just like having PvP zones, except takes longer. I'm not sure adding in a timer is the best solution.
If you want saftey through the badlands, find a group of people with some combat skill. Don't rely on a meter to keep you safe.
The thing that I think about most as far as PvP relates to this game is how to explain/implement it. This setting doesn't translate at all to realm vs realm style PvP a la Dark Age of Camelot or World of Warcraft or even AutoAssault (which is still in beta).
But what current PvP style will it match closest to? SWG with its Empire vs Rebel flagging system with many, many neutral players for them to fight amongst? My MMO experience isn't vast enough to draw a more suitable parallel.
How many 'factions' are there? It certainly seems like the enforcers and the chota have reason to fight with each other. But then, it makes perfect sense for different tribes of chota to be vying for stomping ground as well. And what about the other professions? They shouldn't be pigeon-holed into fighting for the 'good' or 'bad' guys. Some vistas might view anarchists with contempt because the rape-and-pillage attitude is what hurt the planet so badly. Other vistas might view any organized government entity with the same contempt. After all, it was 'The Man' who's responsible for where we are now.
So does that mean PvP should be factionless? Or Clan vs Clan?
I'm really looking forward to see how this is handled.
Haven't really read EVERYTHING in this thread yet, but I know what I would like. The one thing I think SOE / SWG did right was FACTIONS. I really liked the "Empire vs The Rebellion" as well as the ability to engage in guild wars. Not exactly sure how to factionalize FE, but something along the lines of Mutants vs Society.....wasteland criminal element against civil authority...etc.
As far as how to PvP, I really liked the origonal way SWG was setup where you used the F-keys to use skills. The only thing I hated in the begining was there was always 1 leet skill that everyone used. Jedi = dervish, BH = eye shot / torso shot, etc. I would liek to see time based call shots like they moved to, or something along those lines to prevent me from hitting f2 50 times and seeing if I win. Takes the skill away form the game.
I don't really mean to parallel SWG to anything, but I have been wrapped up in that game since beta 2 and I have seen every change, nerf bat or screwup that company can do. My biggest worry is what SOE did and listen to the carebear players cry all the time. A lot of people enjoy PvP because it is not an AI that will get stuck on a mountian, use the same skills and sit there with the same stats over and over again. It is a human that is adapting as well as you during combat and it is a RUSH to win, or a rush to lose. either way (minus exploiters) it is a lot of fun even if you don't choose to play PvP 24/7.
Allowing for faction turn on / off, or guild wars will allow those wishing to part take int he games story line directly to play that out as well as take a break. MXO failed with the PvP servers and would allow a level I think 16 auto go red and could be ganked by a level 50 making it impossible to level or even get around if you were all alone.
Main thing i think would be nice is to have a free kill zone for anyone to be attacked in. I am not sure on how UO is now, but when I played it in the first 4 years of its release, buck's Den was a free kill zone and if you chose to go there...you better be packing heat.
Just a few things I have seen over the last 8+ years of MMORPG playing I liked and didn't like.
It will be interesting to see how the faction relations are handled. I just hope the developers are strong-willed enough to ignore (within reason) the whines and complaints of faction members who happen to be temporarily on the losing end. I hate when faction based warfare is artificially modified to stay "perfectly" balanced. Often those kinds of things are able to take care of themselves anyway, if the base underlying system is well built enough. Here's hopind FE's up to the task!
Interresting thing SWG went to just now was each planet (or maybe just faction over all for FE) has a faction score. For every factional "player" killed is 1 point. For every 25 faction NPCs is 1 point.
Which could break down to something liek this for FE.
Utah (Vegas) Crime syndicate has 300 points of faction and is the current "winner". for that area. Meaning, the NPC spawns in that area are affiliated with that faction. Maybe even a factional perk for that region of the game. Now, you head up to Chicago or something, the "authorities" have the most faction. so Law and Order are supreme there and "criminal activities are reported faster, or whatever.
Just tossing ideas out there because I am having a slow night at work
Although I do like the idea of guild vs. guild wars, I don't think that the factions should become like Galaxies. We should not have to join one of them to be in PvP, nor should they be the defining controllers of territory. How would non-combat groups (Vistas, Lightbringers) be able to compete with ultra-combat groups (Enforcers, CHOTAs)? By making people join factions to PvP, you needlessly restrict them. Allowing PvP to be consentual and making guild wars to be like those in Galaxies (both sides have to agree to fight) would be the best bet.
Waiting For: something good Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
That's a good point, Cthul. I'm hoping the factions are merely titles which your player skills grant you access to. Then the titles, in turn, let you find other players who have similar playing styles, and get access to certain places and events. ie the Vistas would be called in (faction-based quests, anyone?) to investigate an underground hybrid plant research facility.
1) Guildwars mean EVERYONE in that guild MUST fight. Trust me, pre-war rules by non-combatants wearing chef hats or whatever BS crap people try and make up, does not work.
2) Making of EVERYONE fight will cause guild splits for those that are more crafter orientated or just like a group of guys, but don't want to PvP. IE: DC, main guild DC-W war guild. This seperates and alienates members causing breakups and fallouts. Seen it a lot.
3) I can set my guild war against you right now. You then wait till you hasve 50 people online, go turn on your war, attack me and or my city, and then like a wuss, run back and shut it off. Very lame, seen it as well.
4) guildwars do not emurse (sp) you into the role and or lifestyle of the theme you are playing in. My guild has nothing directly to do with FE lets say. So, why fight me other than just to do it. Now, my guild is a major player in the crim syndicate faction (lets just say), now you are aligning yourself with a side of the game and fighting for that side of the game. Thusly emusring yourself INTO the actual game.
One thing to remember about SWG that most people really can not dispute (at least not on Flurry). While SOE could not code, bug fix there way out of a paper bag......they did allow people to get directly involved and feel a part of the game. While in the begining it didn't feel to Star Warsy, the player bases economy / faction playing allowed peopel to take pride in their holdings (bases or cities) and get directly involved if they chose to in the "fight / conflict" of the game. Where as others maybe got more involved in the entertainment and or social aspect of the game.
Personally, I will murder everyone here as often as possible and I will enjoy the hell out of it. But, I wanna murder you FOR something. Not just because I flipped a switch and wanted to play "kill or be killed" for a coupel of hours. GIVE ME SOMETHING TO FIGHT FOR!
Comments
I can understand where you all are coming from who want to have PvP, the same as you can understand and appreciate the necessity for Non-PvPer's to have their space as well. While we all want our cake, and want to eat it too, we realize that can't happen. So, we must reach a pleasant medium on this content in order for the game, as a whole, to appeal to all players.
Immersion, for PvP players, involves being able to kill other people as a course of action, or reaction(whatever the case may be). Immersion for those who are opponents to a PvP system, is becoming involved with the gaming world in more peaceful ways. A game does not have to cater to every facet of reality to provide immersion. There is nothing "realistic" or immerive about being killed 5 times by the same person because they are camping your body, or camping the route you have to take to get where you want to go to actually enjoy the game. On the other hand, there is nothing realistic about Eutopia either.
As a general rule, we are paying 15$, approximately, for the right to play a game that will provide us with what we perceive as our own personal "Eutopia". The only problem is that a developer must design their games to acheive the middle ground, or go for broke and shoot for the extreme. Investing too heavily in either extreme, may not please everyone. Which could impair its longevity. I find nothing wrong with having seperate, but equal zones in the same world that cater to either camp: PvP & Non-PvP.
With 15 years being the average experience of Icarus' development team, I would hardly think they are going to make PvP the primary fuel for role-play in FE, IMO.
Relying on the ability to kill your fellow player is not immersive IMO. Having proper setting, customization, atmosphere, emotes, appropriate skills, discovery and the like create immersion for me. Appearance is everything. But, that is only my opinion, which may or may not be shared by every person, and definitely not by all fans of PvP.
We are a divided population, and will continue to butt-heads over this concept in whatever we desire from a game. I am totally for seperate but equal zones, as evidenced in my statement above. So, this means PvP and Non-PvP zones that have the same/equivalent content available to players. I cannot see this being a problem at all, since if it is only the PVP part that PvPers want, what do they care if the non-PvPer's have the same content availabel to them? You all go kill yourselves in whatever fashion you desire in the PvP areas. The casual gamers(and I mean casual in the way we play) will enjoy the game at our own pace and on our own terms.
But, I do think we can all agree that even PvPer's don't want to engage in PvP all the time. In fact, what is that true breakdown of how often PvPer's would actively want to engage in PvP? I certainly don't know, but I would wager that it isn't even close to 60% of the time they are online playing. In fact, I imagine it doesn't even approach 50%. Which basically means that all that fuss was for a system that goes 50% or more wihtout being utilized in gameplay, that then undergoes another division when you consider PvPer's and Non-PvPers. By then, you have spent a great deal of coding time and resources on a game system that is probably not even utilized at 40% capacity even half of the time. This is considering games that do not feature PvP as primary content. I thought the PvP system in SWG was an excellent system, since it gave me the option to explore every feature available to either Rebels or Imperials, but I never had to fear having to engage in PvP, since I was neutral. But, as far as the others go, we can see how attractive they are. I don't think FE will fall into the other category. Icarus intends to design a game that all players will want to play. I am all for a PvP system like the one in SWG.
We all like to relax or explore without having to watch everything in the game surroundings. What is more, you would think that PvP could be a flag at character creation that can never be switched. You would think that would satisfy the PvPers. But no. PvPer's would argue that they like to relax as well, and don't always want to be PvP enabled everywhere they go. And I can't blame them, that is why we play games. But, it begs the question that Pvper's want their cake, and they want to eat it too. Basically, that means you want to play in the Non-Pvper's world and you want to play in your own PvP world, and then you want the Non-PvPers to suffer under your terms if we want the content that is available in your areas(better resources, higher quality resources, etc..).
That is clearly not a fair and balanced approach at all.
I don't intend to make a big "stink" if you will on this topic. I only believe in fair and equitable game play.
I'm surrounded by reality everyday. That doesn't mean I want to play in it too!
I'm going to laugh so hard if there's a 'non-pvp' mode/flag in this game. The great equalizer is the deformable terrain. I can see it now.
Non-PvPer: Hah! you can't kill me! I'm just gonna follow you around and piss you off!
PvPer: Uh huh. Hey, what's that over there?
Non-PvPer: Wha?
PvPer: *places a couple grenades under non-pvper*
Kaboom!
PvPer: Oh, hey looks like you're stuck in a hole! Here, I'll go train a few powerful mutants into your hole to help you get out
I think there should be a PvP flagging system, but the flags being hardcore PvP and softcore PvP. There should be rewards and bonuses to XP and such for being hardcore, but when you're killed by a player, your corpse could be looted to some degree, among other risks. On softcore, you can still be killed by another player, but there's no penalty, you just respawn somewhere with all your stuff. However, you don't get as much XP or as good loot, or your weapons are less powerful or something.
___________________
Drycat, I'm having a hard time trying to visualize equal content PvP and non-PvP zones. I understand the logic behind it, but imagine the following scenario... an abandoned mine is found containing extremely high quality resources. Since zones would offer equal rewards, a mine would be placed in both a PvP zone and a non-PvP zone. This is how I see the situation playing out:
(PvP zone)
Clans battle for control of this mine. If a rival clan is harvesting resources, gather your friends and destroy them. This way, only one clan is harvesting the resource at a time, or an alliance of clans. It also creates a PvP hotspot that you can go to if you need some action. Eventually, the mine runs out and clans scramble to find the next resource.
(Non-PvP zone)
One clan finds the resource, and the location eventually gets out. Multiple hostile clans gather and harvest resources. Nasty things are said between enemies, but they continue to harvest side by side, growling at eachother. Lets assume that somehow, only one person can harvest at a time. How do you determine who gets to harvest? First come first serve? Thats no fun. The only reasonable method to control this seems to be combat, which leads to a PvP zone.
So how do you make a resource rare in a non-PvP zone and make sure not every single clan can get it? Just putting strong NPCs outside won't work, since you'll have multiple clans trying to take it over anyway. Also, if you can get the resource easily in a non-PvP zone, why even travel to the PvP one? Risk (PvP) leading to reward seems to be the easiest answer here.
http://www.fallenearth.se - Your source for Fallen Earth information
Devise a faction system if you are concerned about that situation. The point of the matter is that you, as a PvP player, have your own resource available to you in a PvP zone that you can fight over and a clan can stake sole claim to. So, basically what we are saying is the same thing again: PvPers want their cake, and they want to eat ours too. Here we differ on our own personal versions of what Eutopia is for us.
It's a cut and dry scenario to me. Let people fight over the deposit of minerals in the Non-PvP area, if there is going to be a PvP by area. No one person, faction or group will ever be able to claim ownership over that deposit.
Secondly, PvP by zone is an alternative to all out PvP. Again, you are trying to manage valuable resources with a PvP system. See my last post as to why the content should be equally spread out.
Originally posted by sinoth
So how do you make a resource rare in a non-PvP zone and make sure not every single clan can get it? Just putting strong NPCs outside won't work, since you'll have multiple clans trying to take it over anyway. Also, if you can get the resource easily in a non-PvP zone, why even travel to the PvP one? Risk (PvP) leading to reward seems to be the easiest answer here.
Again, it is in a non-pvp zone. Every individual who can manage to discover the area, get inside and mine, will be able to do so. There will be no control of the resource. Anyone who is able to get to it, spend the time necessary to harvest the minerals, will be able to do so. And the risk vs. reward thing is what PvPers think makes their requests for additional content/reward above what the peaceful player wants, a justification for making them better off than the other half.
And, why do you travel to a PvP zone? To engage in PvP of course hehe Which is what this is all about isn't it? Or, is it more about the fact that PvPers want to kill everyone, willing or unwilling, combat worthy or not-combat worthy? And maintain an advantage, be it economic or non-economic, over the player base that doesn't want to engage in PvP as well as the player base that does? Why is that so hard to swallow? You want the best the game world has to offer because you desire to kill other people to get it, and you want gameworld content that is unavailable to anyone else but people who choose to PvP. (PvPers want their cake, and they want to eat it too. that's why this topic even exists)
The majority of people play games to relax and get away from the real world. Competition, posing, "politcking", insinuation, greed, hate, inequity, upper-class middle-class lower-class.. I suppose each of us has a list of things we hate about real-life. Competition is unfortunately, a very annoying component of any business structure/heirarchy, and encompasses quite a number of listed and unlisted items in my brief list, if you will. Trifling, arrogance, posing hehe ( I like that one, and it's fun to watch people do it too! ) are just some of the things that fall in with competition. I play MMPORGs to grow my character, to discover things, and do it at my own pace. I don't expect to pay 15$ a month to have to compete with other players to have fun, or enable my character to experience the game world or grow, as it were. My veiw may be shared by many others like me. Just as your veiw may be shared by many others like you. That's what it boils down to.
IMO, rewarding PvP in this manner will only stratify, and eventually alienate your player base. There is just so much required competition, mandatory choices, etc.. that people are willing to stomach.
I'm not out to brow-beat this concept on anyone. The fact is that there is a middle ground that will please or not please everyone. And it is this ground that creates topics like these hehe
I'm for a full pvp system ONLY if there is some concequence to the killing of another. As I am for the looting of pvp kills, but if you loot another charcters body you are flagged to that player for 14 days (or so) and he can track you down and loot it all back. (and to prevent greiving if you dont log in at all within the 14 days it automatically goes back)
but meh, I dont pvp
Obic/gulgoth SWG refugee
member of the 10th proffession
Ok drycat, makes sense
I think a split PvP/non-PvP resource system would be fine. There are definitely those days some of us would want to work on making that new gun we found plans for without risking getting our brains blown out.
There is another balancing mechanism in place I didn't realize at first that will keep the PvPers happy... in the previous scenario I mentioned, imagine if the resource was finite. After so much is mined, it goes dry, and another pops up somewhere. In the PvP zone, if you have a strong clan and find it early on, you have the potential to defend it well and get say 90% of the resource inside. In the non-PvP zone, you can mine easily without danger, however everyone else can too, so you might end up with only 40% or so of the resource. This satisfies a want for risk -> reward, while still keeping the non-PvPers happy. (I think
)
http://www.fallenearth.se - Your source for Fallen Earth information
Yes, actually. Face of Mankind is approaching the end of its open beta currently, but a few months ago it underwent a brief period of a few weeks or so in which it had unrestricted PVP. It was a disaster - there was nothing to keep players in check. The penalty system did not restrain griefers, since outlaws will be outlaws regardless, and the vast majority of players quit after being "ganked". There were no clans per se, just many different factions, and being a member of one did not stop enemy or even neutral players from killing you, regardless of where you were.
Looking at the context of this game, I do not see how PvP can reasonably be restricted in frontier areas. As an explorer, it will likely be in my interest to avoid other players altogether. There must, however, be civilized (or something close) areas where players start out, and they must be kept secure by design, be that auto-turrets or complete pacification. It has been demonstrated many times in the past that players do not police one another in online games.
-----------------------------------
Go you must.
No guest shall stay
in one place for ever.
Love will be lost
if you sit too long
at a friend's fire.
-- The Havamal
Oh so true. They may not police, but they sure do bully.
It is a sad fact these days, but players cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Just look at the mess that is the World of Gankcraft PvP system.
Rules have to be enforced, butts have to be spanked, in short PvP will have to be controlled or the game will be ruled by a small group of iron fisted, self-monkey slapping, counter-strike junkies.
I think one major way to police the PvP gankers is a bounty system which we have discussed many times on this forum. Send NPCs after people, hunting them down, as well as have a bounty listing for players to hunt down others.
Waiting For: something good
Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth
Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
Yes, actually. Face of Mankind is approaching the end of its open beta currently, but a few months ago it underwent a brief period of a few weeks or so in which it had unrestricted PVP. It was a disaster - there was nothing to keep players in check. The penalty system did not restrain griefers, since outlaws will be outlaws regardless, and the vast majority of players quit after being "ganked". There were no clans per se, just many different factions, and being a member of one did not stop enemy or even neutral players from killing you, regardless of where you were.
Looking at the context of this game, I do not see how PvP can reasonably be restricted in frontier areas. As an explorer, it will likely be in my interest to avoid other players altogether. There must, however, be civilized (or something close) areas where players start out, and they must be kept secure by design, be that auto-turrets or complete pacification. It has been demonstrated many times in the past that players do not police one another in online games.
That face of mankind beta was awful, just people standing around pointing their guns at each other and making threats and a bunch of people claiming to control the faction you were part of telling people not to shoot, then someone shoots, all hell breaks loose , people kill each other, rinse, repeat.
Although I found it hillariously funny one time running up to a cop.
"HEY HEY! SOmeones being attacked, quick come come!!"
And this guy runs after me , i lead him outside and point him to a bunch of boxes, he goes looks behind them and I blast him in the back of the head and kill him.
LoL.
But unfortunately the majority of players weren't rping or being clever with the pvp, they'd just abuse the lifts and teleporters and other stuff , logged in a few times and then gave up with it.
PvP has to be done carefully to be an enjoyable experience.
Which is why I personally think more FPS orientated, as opposed to stats and stats and stats, so only the people who work it out and have the best equipment and 'best defences' and all that krap win.
Drycat im sorry to bring you up again but i can't quite understand you. First you say you arnt being hostile but the statment the pvper want their cake and they want to eat ours too... thats pretty hostile. but getting back on topic and not starting a flame...
If you make equal areas with equal content then the pvp areas will not be used for that content but only for PvP killings. if you can saftly get to point A no one would run the risk of going the dangerous way when they could lose something valuable. the PvP minerals would be empty because you could just sit afk in the resorces in the non pvp area for hours
Please try to explain it again and how its possible. I know i sound mean but i think your idea (to the small extent i understand it) is not supurb. sorry about the semi flame
No flame intended, or taken. As the old saying, you want your cake and you want to eat it too.. is just referring to someone who wants the best of two different worlds. No flame is intended. I just like old sayings hehe
And, it is appropriate in the circumstance since PvPer's want to relax in the Non-PvP world. And to force Non-PvPers to enter PvP areas in order to experience content that is otherwise not available to them, just so they can kill them. And once they have had enough PvP, PvPers want to relax in the confort of not having to PvP any longer, so they wander back into a non-PvP area.
No flame as I can see it, but sorry if it was interpreted this way. I try to "tip-toe through the tulips" as much as I can hehe I don't like being offended by others comments either.
So anyway, I'll approach this by first saying that PvP is not the premiere system of an online RPG. I think we can all safely agree that it is not the primary focus of gameplay.
Secondly, the population is split into PvPers and Non-PvPers, and part-time PvPer's. I'll even go one step further and say that even hardcore PvPers don't PvP half the time(unless they're "ganking" pvpers). (Refer to previous posts about this). So who knows how often a part-time PvPer goes at it. Basically the population probably spends the least amount of their time engaged in PvP actions. All out PvP is just a "pandoras" box. As quite a few other forum members have suggested, all out PvP is just plain foolish and unmanageable.
Personally, I am for people who want to engage in PvP choose the option at character creation. But, many PvPers don't want to be engaged in PvP all the time. Hell, I don't blame them. So, this is another facet that makes me ask that question that you took as an offensive statement. Basically, they want to engage in PvP, get rewarded for it, and then come back to the Non-Pvp world like nothing happened and relax in its comfort. So, anyway, on to the next segment...
So, why is it fair for people who engage in PvP to experience more game content (as in access to minerals, areas with mobs that drop better loot, etc..) than people who choose not to? I really don't want to have to copy and paste the last part of my old post, so I'll just recap it briefly:
************************************************************************************
1) You have PvP and Non-PvP areas. They both contain similiar content. Meaning, you can't find things in PvP areas that you could not also find in Non-PvP areas.
2)Why do people want PvP? To kill each other. There needs be no incentive for it, if that is what it is for. So, why do people expect a reward for killing someone in addition to what they can loot off their body?
The problem is that PvPers are not just out for what they say is the primary intent behind PvP(role-playing, killing a pesky person, etc...). PvPers not only want to kill each other, they want to be rewarded for it above what Non-PvPers are rewarded. They want some additional incentive for doing it.
When, really they claim their incentive is that it makes for more realistic role-playing. Now, to me, that is confusing. They claim that enabling PvP is more realistic and enhances roleplaying, yet they want to be rewarded above what they could loot off the other players body, if that is even possible.
Why do you need that extra reward if PvP is for the additional role-playing element?
Why is that? I say if PvPers really want to just kill each other, more power to you. It is when there is an expectation of an additional reward for doing so, be it economic or additional content(like better minerals etc ) above that which is available to players who don't want to engage in PvP, is where I have a problem. That basically says to me that PvPers want Non-PvP types to be forced into entering a PvP zone. That just means more people for them to kill.
Again this gets back to people trying to justify using a PvP system to manage quality resources, better loot, etc.. You're just going to end up pissingoff or alienating that part of the player base that doesn't want to have to be forced to PvP in order to have access to the same content (higher quality resources, better loot drops, etc..) as PvPers.
3)By having the same content available in both areas, PvP and Non-PvP, you can preserve a balance. The difference being that the resources in the mine in the Non-PvP area will be mined by whoever can get to it, so each individual will only a get a fraction of what could be obtained in a PvP area where one or several individuals stake sole claim to the resources and kill anyone coming near the place. Those individuals in the PvP area get much more than what those in the Non-PvP area are able to. But, a balance of sorts is preserved between PvP and Non-PvP content.
************************************************************************************
I don't even believe that providing an incentive to PvPers above what they can loot off their victims' body is even fair, but it is a middle ground.
I think I have clearly elaborated and beat this point up enough in this thread. So, I don't want to bore people by posting more of my comments from previous posts. But I don't mind clarifying my intent if I need to
I really don't consider that old saying I used about the cake as an offensive statement. (So, if you like, I'll just say that PvPer's want the best of both worlds in the future) Sorry about that !
In fact, the posters that use the red eyes.. now that is what I consider hostile. They state that no one should think they are being hostile, but they mention the audience they are addressing and include the little red smiley with the flame on the face. But anyway hehe I just think perhaps this is a misunderstanding.
Thanks for clarifying im not sure i 100% agree with you, but to each his own. and about your comment. i read it angrilly for some reason hehe
maybe im just tired
As this thread's mass shows, PvP is the hottest topic and hardest device to implement in a way that will placate the playerbase. Aside from the hardcore extremists who think that any PvP ruins a game or that only hardcore free-for-all PvP is acceptable, there are many camps in between. I think that the largest section supports the idea of PvP as long as it's implemented right. The largest complaints seem to be when another's fun is put at risk by repeated killing that borders on griefing, and how the game mechanics are radically altered/nerfed/fixed as a result of PvP feedback.
I look forward to seeing how this develops.
Sorry, but that sounds just like a PvP flagging system except the flags aren't fast. I think it would be annoying to have to wait around in a PvP area just to PvP. Having an instant on flag that turned off after death would accomplish the exact same thing. The only thing different from the flagging system is that with your meter, people would eventually HAVE to PvP in certain areas. Which is just like having PvP zones, except takes longer. I'm not sure adding in a timer is the best solution.
If you want saftey through the badlands, find a group of people with some combat skill. Don't rely on a meter to keep you safe.
http://www.fallenearth.se - Your source for Fallen Earth information
The thing that I think about most as far as PvP relates to this game is how to explain/implement it. This setting doesn't translate at all to realm vs realm style PvP a la Dark Age of Camelot or World of Warcraft or even AutoAssault (which is still in beta).
But what current PvP style will it match closest to? SWG with its Empire vs Rebel flagging system with many, many neutral players for them to fight amongst? My MMO experience isn't vast enough to draw a more suitable parallel.
How many 'factions' are there? It certainly seems like the enforcers and the chota have reason to fight with each other. But then, it makes perfect sense for different tribes of chota to be vying for stomping ground as well. And what about the other professions? They shouldn't be pigeon-holed into fighting for the 'good' or 'bad' guys. Some vistas might view anarchists with contempt because the rape-and-pillage attitude is what hurt the planet so badly. Other vistas might view any organized government entity with the same contempt. After all, it was 'The Man' who's responsible for where we are now.
So does that mean PvP should be factionless? Or Clan vs Clan?
I'm really looking forward to see how this is handled.
Haven't really read EVERYTHING in this thread yet, but I know what I would like. The one thing I think SOE / SWG did right was FACTIONS. I really liked the "Empire vs The Rebellion" as well as the ability to engage in guild wars. Not exactly sure how to factionalize FE, but something along the lines of Mutants vs Society.....wasteland criminal element against civil authority...etc.
As far as how to PvP, I really liked the origonal way SWG was setup where you used the F-keys to use skills. The only thing I hated in the begining was there was always 1 leet skill that everyone used. Jedi = dervish, BH = eye shot / torso shot, etc. I would liek to see time based call shots like they moved to, or something along those lines to prevent me from hitting f2 50 times and seeing if I win. Takes the skill away form the game.
I don't really mean to parallel SWG to anything, but I have been wrapped up in that game since beta 2 and I have seen every change, nerf bat or screwup that company can do. My biggest worry is what SOE did and listen to the carebear players cry all the time. A lot of people enjoy PvP because it is not an AI that will get stuck on a mountian, use the same skills and sit there with the same stats over and over again. It is a human that is adapting as well as you during combat and it is a RUSH to win, or a rush to lose. either way (minus exploiters) it is a lot of fun even if you don't choose to play PvP 24/7.
Allowing for faction turn on / off, or guild wars will allow those wishing to part take int he games story line directly to play that out as well as take a break. MXO failed with the PvP servers and would allow a level I think 16 auto go red and could be ganked by a level 50 making it impossible to level or even get around if you were all alone.
Main thing i think would be nice is to have a free kill zone for anyone to be attacked in. I am not sure on how UO is now, but when I played it in the first 4 years of its release, buck's Den was a free kill zone and if you chose to go there...you better be packing heat.
Just a few things I have seen over the last 8+ years of MMORPG playing I liked and didn't like.
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com DC Main Page
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com/apocalypse Sci-Fi / Apoc Theme Forums
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com/citadel DnD Style Theme forums (coming soon)
It will be interesting to see how the faction relations are handled. I just hope the developers are strong-willed enough to ignore (within reason) the whines and complaints of faction members who happen to be temporarily on the losing end. I hate when faction based warfare is artificially modified to stay "perfectly" balanced. Often those kinds of things are able to take care of themselves anyway, if the base underlying system is well built enough. Here's hopind FE's up to the task!
___________________
Interresting thing SWG went to just now was each planet (or maybe just faction over all for FE) has a faction score. For every factional "player" killed is 1 point. For every 25 faction NPCs is 1 point.
Which could break down to something liek this for FE.
Utah (Vegas) Crime syndicate has 300 points of faction and is the current "winner". for that area. Meaning, the NPC spawns in that area are affiliated with that faction. Maybe even a factional perk for that region of the game. Now, you head up to Chicago or something, the "authorities" have the most faction. so Law and Order are supreme there and "criminal activities are reported faster, or whatever.
Just tossing ideas out there because I am having a slow night at work
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com DC Main Page
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com/apocalypse Sci-Fi / Apoc Theme Forums
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com/citadel DnD Style Theme forums (coming soon)
Although I do like the idea of guild vs. guild wars, I don't think that the factions should become like Galaxies. We should not have to join one of them to be in PvP, nor should they be the defining controllers of territory. How would non-combat groups (Vistas, Lightbringers) be able to compete with ultra-combat groups (Enforcers, CHOTAs)? By making people join factions to PvP, you needlessly restrict them. Allowing PvP to be consentual and making guild wars to be like those in Galaxies (both sides have to agree to fight) would be the best bet.
Waiting For: something good
Games Tried: SWTOR, Star Trek Online, EQ, EQ2, Earth and Beyond, Planetside, Lineage 2, Eve Online, WoW, City of Heroes, City of Villians, Auto Assault, Fallen Earth
Star Wars: Galaxies - Ibra Olasi (Valcyn Server) [Dead, screw you SOE]
That's a good point, Cthul. I'm hoping the factions are merely titles which your player skills grant you access to. Then the titles, in turn, let you find other players who have similar playing styles, and get access to certain places and events. ie the Vistas would be called in (faction-based quests, anyone?) to investigate an underground hybrid plant research facility.
___________________
Here is the major problem with GUILDWARS.
1) Guildwars mean EVERYONE in that guild MUST fight. Trust me, pre-war rules by non-combatants wearing chef hats or whatever BS crap people try and make up, does not work.
2) Making of EVERYONE fight will cause guild splits for those that are more crafter orientated or just like a group of guys, but don't want to PvP. IE: DC, main guild DC-W war guild. This seperates and alienates members causing breakups and fallouts. Seen it a lot.
3) I can set my guild war against you right now. You then wait till you hasve 50 people online, go turn on your war, attack me and or my city, and then like a wuss, run back and shut it off. Very lame, seen it as well.
4) guildwars do not emurse (sp) you into the role and or lifestyle of the theme you are playing in. My guild has nothing directly to do with FE lets say. So, why fight me other than just to do it. Now, my guild is a major player in the crim syndicate faction (lets just say), now you are aligning yourself with a side of the game and fighting for that side of the game. Thusly emusring yourself INTO the actual game.
One thing to remember about SWG that most people really can not dispute (at least not on Flurry). While SOE could not code, bug fix there way out of a paper bag......they did allow people to get directly involved and feel a part of the game. While in the begining it didn't feel to Star Warsy, the player bases economy / faction playing allowed peopel to take pride in their holdings (bases or cities) and get directly involved if they chose to in the "fight / conflict" of the game. Where as others maybe got more involved in the entertainment and or social aspect of the game.
Personally, I will murder everyone here as often as possible and I will enjoy the hell out of it. But, I wanna murder you FOR something. Not just because I flipped a switch and wanted to play "kill or be killed" for a coupel of hours. GIVE ME SOMETHING TO FIGHT FOR!
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com DC Main Page
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com/apocalypse Sci-Fi / Apoc Theme Forums
http://www.durmanhoth-clan.com/citadel DnD Style Theme forums (coming soon)
Agreed. I prefer not to kill people for no tangible reason. Hopefully players will drop at least a portion of their items on death.
___________________
