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.
|Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon 12.31.2015 07:38|
It is my understanding that March 1 will bring in new development team. I'm hoping that along with a new engine, we end up with a complete wipe / restart using that new engine and a slew of new and improved systems.
1. All PvP should be non consensual
2. Consensual PvP is training. Not real, PvP.
3. Zone based PvP and resource nodes.
4. Faction based PvP, anytime, anywhere.
5. PvP has greater risk and reward vs. PvE only.
These things have been said over and over again, by more people than just me. And these suggestions have been made, not just here again in this thread, but for many months and even years on this forum and on the Paizo forums.
With the exception of Faction based PvP, all of the other suggestions can currently be done. The mechanics for open PvP hexes existed during the War of Towers. We already know that the Devs can manipulated resource nodes on a hex-by-hex basis.
All it takes is the will to do it.
Now, the Factions are a slightly different story, but the suggestions have not changed over these many months or even years. Three Factions: Merchant; Guardian; Bandit
Each one with specifuc talents related to operating within the PvP zones or generally in PvP. All with the potential, as faction rank increases, to become long term flagged.
Aragon (CN) a settlement founded on the principles of the River Freedoms: Say What You Will; Oath Breakers Die; Walk Any Road, Float Any River; Courts are for Kings; Slavery is an Abomination; Have What You Hold.
Settlement Focus: Fighter and Rogue Training
Game Play: Escalations / Refining / Crafting / Defensive PVP
|Edam 12.31.2015 07:43|
I am in favor of faction based PvP.
However its worth pointing out that faction based PvP is by its very nature consensual.
Many people in EVE see faction war as filling an odd place halfway between "Carebear" and what is seen as "true" PvP.
|Caldeathe Baequiannia 12.31.2015 07:51|
Tyv Blodvaerd of AragonThis appears to be getting turned into cannon. What Lisa said is that things are looking good, there is a demonstrated intent, and the would-be new publishers, if they can get their financing in place, would like to take over on March 1st.
To reach me, email email@example.com
|Smitty 12.31.2015 08:00|
Caldeathe BaequianniaTyv Blodvaerd of AragonThis appears to be getting turned into cannon. What Lisa said is that things are looking good, there is a demonstrated intent, and the would-be new publishers, if they can get their financing in place, would like to take over on March 1st.
I wouldn’t get too attached to any specific date at this point either..
We are talking about 4 different companies working out an agreement with a contract that all of them need to review..
GW and Paizo may be able to easily get on the same page with wording.. as the person running both of those companies is the same person.. but Lisa may choose to use a different attorney to represent each company..
We have a new Dev company and then the financial backers who all are going to review the contract, change a few commas.. change some words .. then send it to the other 3 companies to agree on.. who will move the commas to a third location.. to be sent on to be approved .. you get the point..
This thing won’t be official till that process plays out and 60 days or so seems like a best case scenario..
best we just leave the date open ended at this point and wait for an official announcement..
|vyal 12.31.2015 08:04|
Tyv Blodvaerd of AragonPurely from a financial/profit perspective, this is death. If not death, life support. (that is, dozens/hundreds of concurrent players, at best, during prime time hours)
Historically demonstrated to be true with every fantasy themed persistent multiplayer online game that has ever tried it, since 1995. Even those that only had non-consensual as an option, or bait and switch, or as HALF of the gameplay content, still those failed, some after a few months, some after a few years.
I'm not criticizing you, Tyv, everyone has the right to express their opinion. I'm just saying that if I was an investor, and I saw this, I would run far and fast.
Financially, sticking with what you've outlined is throwing money down a hole with no bottom, and if they stick with this existing failed model, they're simply delaying the inevitable death of this game.
|arty155jln 12.31.2015 08:41|
You can engage in PvP by entering unprotected hexes. This is your consent to allow PVPers to attack you there is no need for feud timers or glowing red flags!This is the simplest method.
One more thing that I find lacking in most PVP games is PVP rewards. its fine looting their stuff and destroying their gear but eventually (as tig pointed out) they are just gonna start running round naked to minimise the risk and handicap your rewards.You can’t do this in EvE; being naked in EvE is synonymous to being in your pod, and that’s a 1 shot kill for even a frigate. Gear should matter, and no one should feel like being naked gives them any advantage. However right now, gear on your paper doll isn’t lost, so I fail to see how that is even a factor. But this may be my personal take on PvP; because I do not PvP for solo rewards. I played EvE to be a cog in the wheel of a mass war machine that took over space; I didn’t play EvE so I could get solo kills and loot at gate camps. Personally if all inventory loot was able to be stolen by other players upon death, then that’s a fine reward for solo PvP.
Personally my PvP “reward” is seeing other players assets/buildings/holdings destroyed. Give me a way to show that my company owns a piece of land and I’m good for PvP.
Drogun has simplified the process in a succinct way.
It is my understanding that March 1 will bring in new development team. I'm hoping that along with a new engine, we end up with a complete wipe / restart using that new engine and a slew of new and improved systems.I hope it’s not a “new” engine, just the newest version of the same engine (upgrade Unity 4 to Unity 5). Again an upgrade to Unity 5 is not going to be “groundbreaking” for the game. While I believe Unity 5 would be a good move, it should not be the focus for the dev team.
On your points 1 thru 3 and 5 I agree, again another simplified list of what could happen. On point 4 I think that should be the major focus of PvE; in that factional combat is about raising your reputation with NPC factions in order to gain something from the faction, be that a skill or to counteract a negative aspect of your character etc. It could be a middle ground PvP like factional warfare in EvE though.
What I have gathered in the tone of this thread is that PvP is wanted, but it’s how to go about keeping rewarding PvP and not alienating PvErs/casual PvPers. So here’s my list of how to proceed. Number 1 would be easiest in my mind to code for, while number 4 would take the most time.
1. Open up a few hexes that are FFA, and alert players that by entering said hex they are consenting to PvP. The code for a trigger is already there in the form of the colored icon that changes on the minimap when you enter different hexes. A simple warning is easy to code as a text box and then have it display the first time you enter an open PvP hex. (This would be a good reason to use Unity 5, because the UI system was changed between 4 & 5, and I prefer the UI system in 5)
2. Factional Warfare (simple faction testing)- Code up a few factions for testing purposes. If done correctly the only new thing to code would be a way of visualizing the faction rep. It would be easy enough to use the same code/system that is used for Achievements. Each player character might need another Unity tag associated with them (I'm not sure how the games classes are coded, but do something similar - so it might be just a database save), and when killed by a rival faction they get an achievement tick. Faction rep could be gained through either PvP or PvE.
3. PvP over resource nodes - use the existing resource system on a larger scale. In addition to the holdings system, have another system similar to monster hexes that are mine resource hexes. These hexes would still have npcs and other general resource nodes, the main difference is you wouldn’t be able to put any holdings on these hexes. Then go look at Shadowbane on how they implemented their system. For the sake of being brief I will not explain more, but this would require the most amount of coding.
4. Factional Warfare (reward system) - Last implement a reward system for the Faction system. It could be stuff to buy, new armor appearances that are only costumes for existing armor, it could be new skills or settlement wide buffs.
|Bringslite 12.31.2015 09:10|
Your #3 is basically what the T3 resource hexes are. That is pretty close to what Lisa has suggested except that the fight is over the Boss mob and in her version the PVP is open all the time and the resources are available to all UNTIL the boss mob is killed and before the next escalation starts. In that window, only the settlement that takes the prize can harvest, but the PVP is still wide open.
The function: PVP (in those hexes) is rep free constantly. Resources are there constantly (unless depleted) for taking, except for that "fallow time" between escalations. The only weakness I see in it is the resources are depleted far too easily to not be gamed.
Virtute et Armis
|Thod-Theodum 12.31.2015 09:12|
Can someone please enlighten me about the risk of PvP in the game right now as it is?
You can equip a fighter with a T2 sword, bow and armour for <50 silver pieces at the EL auction house. If you are insisting on T2+3 then we talk closer to 75 silver - but I'm told good PvPer go with the cheaper option.
So we are talking a loss of 2.5 silver pieces per death.
Now lets place this into perspective:
The gatherer who collects 50 coal and gets mugged runs twice the risk of the PvPer (loss of at least 5 silver of goods collected) - I ignore any armour and weapons here.
The PvEer who gains a T2 recipe runs 4-8 times the risk of the PvPer when killed (loss of a recipe worth 10-20 silver pieces) - I ignore any armour and weapons here.
The trader with a mule full of goods from settlement A to settlement B might have 1 gold (or a lot more) of stuff on his mule. He runs 40 times the risk of the PvPer.
The risks for the gatherer, the PvEer and the trader are real. Most death doesn't happen through PvP action - but death and loss does happen on a frequent basis - be it through monsters, be it through typing in the chat window and being careless, be it through issues with the program - my son just lost the other day some 100+ iron and a lot more stuff at least as valuable by being stuck. That loss alone was the equivalent of a PvPer dying 50 times over.
So again - can someone please enlighten me about the risk of a PvP player. As I see it - there isn't much of a risk. At least not in any form of game currency. I can't see any reward either to be honest.
A game only functions when the risk/reward system in in balance. A lot of bad press that PvPer get here is because PvEer just don't understand where the risk for the PvPer is. So what kind of risk is there in EvE for a PvPer that we miss here?
PS: A mule is valued around 2-3 silver pieces. So using a mule for a trader is a similar cost to a PvPer dying once. Unless I really miss something big and large here.
Thod/Theodum are the OOC/IC leaders of the Emerald Lodge - a neutral settlement in the center of the mal that tries to the first to explore the Emerald Spire - should that part of the game ever become available. We have a strong in game and out of game relationship with the Pathfinder Society.
We welcome both hard core players as well as casual players with or without tabletop experience. We have a strong group in Europe and are slowly expanding into the US. We are predominately PvE as our neutral political stance means that we tend to use PvP only in self-defence. We are not anti-PVP - but expect limited PvP opportunity with us.
|Bringslite 12.31.2015 09:20|
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
1. Placing buildings that can be feuded is consenting to PVP. Ranking up in a faction will be consenting to PVP. Harvesting in "claimed" hexes is saying "catch me if you can". It's ALL consensual.
2. See #1
3. Like it.
4. Like it.
5. Not sure I grasp what you mean here. I've never seen a game that had better rewards for PVP than a full time PVE player can amass in a shorter time. I am counting gathering as PVE, but it could be considered PVP. If you go that route, then PVE really is just PVP also.
Edit: I should add that the PVE player has a far greater income OVER TIME than a PVP player. The PVP player has infrequent spikes when he catches them unprotected. Thod's post reminded me of that.
Virtute et Armis
|Quijenoth Starkiller 12.31.2015 09:26|
The issue is that its only on T3. T1 and T2 do not share the system and because of this PVP only matters after you have been playing for almost a year!