Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Breaking Gear

Tuoweit
The main issue is really "not enough conflict", and the reason for that is that it's proving to be hard to find the right reasons for inciting conflict without causing too many other problems.

Goblinworks could easily reduce training levels for towers, but there's additional factors which push against that: The game becomes too much "survival of the fittest/biggest" for some players (I guess this is why GW has actually been moving in the other direction); Additional towers means rapidly growing PvP windows, which is a disincentive to holding "too many" towers, meaning that with current populations, 12 is pretty much a practical upper bound on the number of towers many groups want to be holding, and 9 is more comfortable; and towers are decidedly political, and in the short term the benefit of towers is not really seen as outweighing the benefit of having friendly neighbours. So fiddling with the tower values is not really feasible in the short term.

The other obvious option is to provide a better incentive through resources. Competition over resources is less political (but it still can be to an extent), and it's certainly less of an existential threat than taking towers (not literally, but symbolically at least) - it's something pretty much every group across the map can get in on without ruffling too many feathers.

The resources in-game currently are too spread out and plentiful to generate the kind of concentrated conflict I think people are looking for (obviously? It would be happening already if that wasn't the case). So I think some kind of relatively short-term "resource bonanza" event that players fight over would be more suitable. I don't exactly know what that could be, but there's a few conditions that would need to be satisfied, I think:

* Reasons not to run around in the biggest blob you can muster. A couple ideas along these lines:
–> Multiple objective locations within a hex and/or multiple events simultaneously across the map
–> Larger total rewards, the fewer people participating in the winning group (I don't know if this is possible with current tech - the only recognizable "win condition" is a single person interacting with an item/npc/mob, and recognizing who is "participating" and who is working with who is problematic.)
* Different sizes of event. Small groups need to feel like there's something they stand a chance at winning, and not simply ignore it because they think a much larger group will inevitably steamroller them.
* Not simply "more of the same" in terms of resources. It should be something people will generally always want more of (i.e. not recipes), it shouldn't replace (or be made irrelevant by) the normal gathering process, and it should somehow balance between being fairly desirable without leading to a snowball effect of winner keeps on winning. Not that regular resources would necessarily be bad, they could still be part of the reward.

This sort of thing could probably be done within the factions system (raids on/protecting faction sites, with corresponding rewards), whenever that happens, and raiding player outposts/holdings provides a lot of similar features (although they have the "direct attack" politically negative connotations).

So perhaps something like NPC "camps" analogous to player outposts that appear in various places (badlands?) for relatively short durations, which could be fought over? They might be able to make use of some of the escalation tech & outpost assets.
Tigari
I for one do "pvp for the lulz". I find it fun to go out and combat people. Winning or losing. It is better when there's a reason behind it, but the reasons in this game just don't help for me. The Tower pvp is "appointment" pvp. You get as many people on at a known time, and go and attack a force that SHOULD have as many people on at the same known time, they even get a 1 hour warning. This is no fun. If I wanted that kind of PvP I'd go back to battlegrounds in WoW. I enjoy Open World PvP. Something can happen at anytime. Sometimes I find no one, Sometimes I find more then I can handle..THAT is fun.

And you talk about the "cat and mouse" tactics that Elseworth is so fond of..THAT'S BECAUSE HES SMART! He's fully aware that we're outnumbered. He knows we'll lose the "civil war" battle. Everyone just lining up and shooting. That's also another reason I detest tower pvp. Numbers alone win it. Doesn't matter how good your tactics are.
Tuoweit
Tigari
I for one do "pvp for the lulz". I find it fun to go out and combat people. Winning or losing. It is better when there's a reason behind it, but the reasons in this game just don't help for me. The Tower pvp is "appointment" pvp. You get as many people on at a known time, and go and attack a force that SHOULD have as many people on at the same known time, they even get a 1 hour warning. This is no fun. If I wanted that kind of PvP I'd go back to battlegrounds in WoW. I enjoy Open World PvP. Something can happen at anytime. Sometimes I find no one, Sometimes I find more then I can handle..THAT is fun.

And you talk about the "cat and mouse" tactics that Elseworth is so fond of..THAT'S BECAUSE HES SMART! He's fully aware that we're outnumbered. He knows we'll lose the "civil war" battle. Everyone just lining up and shooting. That's also another reason I detest tower pvp. Numbers alone win it. Doesn't matter how good your tactics are.

I think there is room for both in PFO. However, given the nature of the game, you shouldn't be surprised if a significant portion of the player base is not interested in catering to your desired gameplay and in fact actively works to avoid & discourage its practice against themselves. Furthermore, if you make all the players seeking "for the lulz" PvP blue to each other, it's not a unexpected consequence that they find PFO boring.
Tigari
I don't expect ANYONE to cater to my playstyle. And I don't expect people to make it wasy by NOT trying to avoid it. And to your making all other pvp'er blue, well, to be fair we're still a small portion of the community. Theres really only 1 settlement of us. Plus we have a couple crafting settlements that are with us. If there where more people like me in the game, we wouldn't all have to rally under the same banner so we're not so outnumbered by the others.

I'm just pointing out what I find wrong with the current PvP mechanics so we CAN get more people like me in this game. Right now the retention rate of the avid pvp'ers is horrible. I meet new people every month, but also say bye (or never hear from ) almost the same amount.
RanBlade
There are so many ways to do this from a design perspective. All of them will have the zealots for the cause and your haters.

I personally LOVED how Ultima Online handled death. It will never happen again in any game I fear. But in Ultima Online you spawned as a ghost at your corpse and had to run around and find either a NPC to res you or a friend. Once resed you either went to your bank and re geared because all you had on was a robe. or you ran back to your corpse and looted your body. Now when that body was laying there it could be looted by everyone so in a pvp situation you were out of the fight until you could regear and get back to the field. In PvE it had less consequence and you could usually get your gear back.

EVE took a similar approach and your ship you were flying blew up and left a wreck. you were then in a "pod"(there version of a ghost). You then had to fly your pod back to a space station and get a new ship and fly back to combat. or you let your pod get blown up and it teleported you back to your home star station and you have to work from there.

Both of these games had ways to remove you from the large scale pvp battle because it is important to be removed from a large scale pvp battle. Otherwise if you re spawn (as it seems you do now I am new so I have not had the pleasure yet) and come right back into the game.. your large scale pvp has just become WoW battlegrounds or there new "world pvp zones".

In a sandbox there is lasting consequences. The same with a pen and paper game. This game needs to have lasting consequences. Now I am sure that they aren't going to the extremes that UO and EVE took(even though I would LOVE that). There could be a middle ground I feel.

Think about this. If you die from a NPC the current system works as the same. you spawn at the closest shrine.

If you die after taking any damage from a player that is not at war with you and you are in neutral territory to both parties you pick a spawn point atleast half a hex away from your death or just go ahead with one full hex away.

If you die from a player that controls that territory and you are not at war with them. you have to pick a spawn point outside of said players claimed territory.

If you are at war with the person and inside the persons territory you have to spawn back at your allied territory.

Wars are harsh and should have harsh consequences. And the home team has the advantage like they should.

Now if we apply the same concept to gear breaking.

PVE - maybe you can die 5-10 times before your gear breaks. — 2-4 durability hit
PVP to a random player that has no war or grudge with you could be like 10-15 times. — 4-1.25 durability hit(didn't actually do math)
PVP in a controled zone by the person who controls it 3-5 times before gear is broken. — 4-6 durability hit
PVP against a enemy company/settlement should be 1 time your gear is broken. — 20 durability hit.
so leave it at 20 durability.

And shrine camping needs to be removed. No shrines in cities. Have a tavern spawn point for allies of the settlement to spawn at.

Like was suggested in the other post. Make a barrier around the shrine. with even maybe a teleporter to come out. that you can't fire in or out of.
Give the players a retreat flag. while in the shrine safe zone. once they click this flag it spawns them at there home settlement for 1 durability loss. So if you die in pvp your naked anyway and can just go home. or run out naked and try to get to your resupply allies. But YOU left that safe zone your own fault if you die.
Seems all over the place but its just a random idea that can hopefully be built on if people like it. I just hope this game doesn't become "sandbox WoW' and they take the stance EVE has of staying a niche game that has consequences. Sure it will turn people away but it should bring in the right type of PvP/PvE/RP(sandbox needs strong RP players) players that can make this game thrive like EVE. Don't try and be WoW.
Tuoweit
Tigari
And to your making all other pvp'er blue, well, to be fair we're still a small portion of the community. Theres really only 1 settlement of us. Plus we have a couple crafting settlements that are with us. If there where more people like me in the game, we wouldn't all have to rally under the same banner so we're not so outnumbered by the others.

My point is that for the most part, you still wouldn't be "outnumbered by others" if you spread out across multiple settlements instead of all gathering under one banner (i.e. what I meant by "being blue" to each other) - most "others" aren't proactively seeking to fight you (assuming a blank slate of history, at least), if you're actively avoiding the "appointment" fights that you don't like.
Rynnik
@ RanBlade. Great post. Those are some awesome high tech long term types of solutions I think.

Tuoweit
Tigari
And to your making all other pvp'er blue, well, to be fair we're still a small portion of the community. Theres really only 1 settlement of us. Plus we have a couple crafting settlements that are with us. If there where more people like me in the game, we wouldn't all have to rally under the same banner so we're not so outnumbered by the others.

My point is that for the most part, you still wouldn't be "outnumbered by others" if you spread out across multiple settlements instead of all gathering under one banner (i.e. what I meant by "being blue" to each other) - most "others" aren't proactively seeking to fight you (assuming a blank slate of history, at least), if you're actively avoiding the "appointment" fights that you don't like.
Can I please get accepted into Phaeros so I can fight Tigari every day with meaning?
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Tigari
aww Rynnik..I don't want to kill you ;D OH, and no meaning allowed! WE FIGHT FOR THE LULZ!
RanBlade
Tigari
aww Rynnik..I don't want to kill you ;D OH, and no meaning allowed! WE FIGHT FOR THE LULZ!

Fighting for the luls can be portrayed in a RP way as … A roving band of marauders out to take there plunder and riches. If that was RPed out in a fun way I would be on board with a group doing that. It would also give me a target to defend the weak (PvEers) and innocent of the world by having a Brigade of bounty hunters or a army of honorable knights to defeat the mauraders.

And when its done with RP in mind even most PvE players can accept it easier haha. smile
Tuoweit
Rynnik
Can I please get accepted into Phaeros so I can fight Tigari every day with meaning?

I'm sure there are some Golgothans who would fit in at Phaeros, but you are not one of them.

It wasn't really my intention to specifically draw people into Phaeros, though, just a general observation about distribution of players looking for Tigari's preferred playing style.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post