Game imbalance is not incentive

I wouldn't think PVP death would cause decay. The XP boost is from turning the flagged on, but you still won't gain any XP from PVP kills. You will still have to kill NPC mobs for XP gain.

 

If being flagged for pvp yields 25% more exp against mobs.. I'd argue pvp IS giving you experience.

 

At the same time, wouldn't you lose the time from gaining experience from having to fight against other PVPers as well instead of just focusing on killing mobs?

 

It's still a full week ahead in character progress for each month played. 25% is way too much.

 

I had no idea there was a bonus. What's the bonus exactly? Being flagged PVP? Does that force you into multiplayer mode? I hope the answer is yes.

 

Incentive for PVP should be in the form of something exciting to do, not a quick'n'dirty way to cut corners.

Everybody wants to cut corners, given the chance.

That doesn't turn the cut cornering feature into something that makes PVP suddenly appealing on its own.

 

outrageous is my opinion about any kind of xp bonus to PvP
If you want to give PvP:ers extra xp make a 3rd kind of xp pool for pvp exp and some pvp skills that uses it nothing else.

 

@Chris

If you are going to test that then you should really add decay to PvP death as well - and make 50% of it part of the loot added to the victors xp pool.

 

Which is one of the biggest problems with QA testing ATM. They should list every single change that goes in, because how are we supposed to test stuff if we don't know it's changed?

If right now PVP people gain nothing from a game style they enjoy, why not force them to do PVE, instead of trying to force PVEers to go PVP? Same logic reversed... I don't see how PVP players enhance the game experience more than PVE players... As a matter of fact, I sometimes find them utterly distracting, so when that happens, shouldn't they be punished for making the game experience worse for some players? Also, I know for a fact there would be a considerable group that would not have any issues with the suggested fixed amount of XP per hour in game... So will you create that option for that group as well then? Because that would enhance the game experience for them!

Fix PVP, don't do the same old, already failed, stuff that will only upset people without actually improving the game!

PS: And no matter what you say ("only 2 levels at around 80"), a 25% bonus still means they need 25% less game time for the same XP, and thus have a huge benefit until everyone reaches the upper levels, which I will likely never get to, because I just have too little time to power-play for XP gain, and prefer the social aspect when I do get to play.

 

I like this idea, but I would be worried about exploitation. Especially if someone decided to leave the game and "cash out" their character by allowing a friend or guildmate to kill farm them for XP.

 

Can you please give us some insight to fix performance issues related to MP mode.

 

Not practically possible since you need to accrue the decay after each death.

 

PVP should be its own reward.

If it's not, then something with PVP is broken.

Your solution is leak that brokenness into PVE.

Not a good solution, IMNSHO.

 

Full disclaimer:
I do pve, I also participate PVP, and will be going pvp flagged in overworld more often, but right now PVP is unplayable due, at minimum, performance issues. When an overworld pvp fight lasts less than 10 seconds, you can't afford to be hitching for half of it. So that should eliminate the [removed violated word - Berek] arguments.

Really? Because where i'm sitting, 25% more experience means 25% more experience.
That means an extra GM skill for every 4 the other person has.
That means an extra GM tree, and associated attunements, for every 4 the other person has.
That means an extra boss you can farm because you have what he's weak to, for every 4 the other person has, and therefore means another 100-300k bonus gold from selling materials that first week the boss is out.

Things are on a curve, but that curve only matters once people near maxing out their character and start going higher.

Now, I apologize for picking your post to shreds, but there's a lot of arguments you crammed into one post here.

So by this statement, you are saying that the chance for loot, is not worth the repairs/risk for pvp?
You are literally saying, the one thing entirely within your control that affects ONLY pvp players, you've intentionally setup to make it not worth it?
Think you might start there? If people don't find pvp worth it, up the PVP-oriented incentives, starting with the looting that is almost universally agreed to be poor.

Actually i'm pretty sure most PVE's responses has been, "You should make it fun for them, and they should do it because they enjoy the fun you've made".
Forcing participation isn't fun, especially if the people who WANT to pvp aren't doing it because the system isn't fun to begin with.

That's not even a comparison, it's just a strawman.
A closer argument would be "How about i remove all durability loss, looting, reagent use from pvp and turn it into battlegrounds".
Likewise, "How about we remove all experience and items/loot and just have people be characters with a preset skill pool to spend".
Those are at least apples to apples.
And both aren't bad ideas, however i'm pretty sure this community has discussed to death that they want meaningful progression in both.

Please tell me again the risk an 8-party of level 120s is going to take farming with pvp flags on.
The only "Risk" half the pvpers will take is drive-by ganking lowbies, because that's the system you've setup.

Here is the crux of the argument. This isn't about pvpers wanting to pvp. This is about them wanting targets to farm.
You're not encouraging pvp Chris.
You're asking for a way to slaughter people who can't meaningfully fight back and hope that they'll just accept the loss because you've given them a reward to become your human punching dummies.

This change will not suddenly result on a wide adoption of 1 on 1 pvp fights throughout the overworld.
This will result in a party of 2-3 running through lowbie zones, chain-stunning solo players for a quick 1k gold off their equipment.
-- This is especially important that it works due to how our loot system works. That party takes no risk, because if they kill even 5 people before another party shows up and kills them, due to how the loot system currently works they on average would still only lose 3 people worth of loot. Plus pvpers would be equipped to game the loot system (tons of 1 stacks).

The game isn't balanced enough for this.
Especially not when you've let exploiters run rampant for months.

We're not complaining about the type of experience. We're complaining that you're trying to both have your cake and eat it too.
Either make pvp mandatory to get your targets, and deal with that fallout, or make it optional.
Do not attempt to sneak in mandatory while pretending it's still optional.

You don't encourage things by forcing people to play a broken system.
You fix the system so people actually WANT to play it.


Just off the top of my head:
If you want pvp, how about fixing the garbage collection bug that prohibits over 20% of players from actively PVPing because they hitch every few seconds in combat.
If you want pvp, how about including a minimum bounty on player based on level, in addition to the equipment (ups risk and reward for those who choose to play).
If you want pvp, how about actually shutting down people farming broken zones instead of letting it go on for weeks/months at a time so that people don't feel that there's no point.
If you want pvp, how about actually putting worthwhile things in the PVP zones that make them worth fighting over.
-- -- Hell, here's a nice simple one you already have code for, make one shardfall a control point that spawns nothing, but ups an internal character counter, that each month is reset and unlocks PVP titles, with whoever has the highest score getting a unique title.
If you want pvp, how about doing a balance pass on skills BEFORE trying to force it on, rather than creating a situation that will be exploited until it's fixed.
If you want pvp, how about including a system that modifies bounty based on relative level so that farming lowbies isn't encouraged.
-- -- -- Other games did this by geographically seperating out low and high areas. Yes people could go farm lowbies, but it costs them 10 minutes of travel time each way. There's no restriction here, and no exponential scaling of loot so that farming lowbies is still pretty profitable.
-- -- On that note adding a pvp "difficulty" system like mobs wouldn't be amiss. within 5 levels? Sure, it's even enough. Within 20? eh minor beatdown. Outside of 20? Now you're just farming people who can't fight back.

Pvp is broken, and it's not broken because no one plays, so forcing people to play won't fix it.

No one plays, because it is broken. Fixing the broken is the first step.

 

Suggesting that a part of a game, which be definition is played for fun, should entice people by virtue of it being fun is not illogical in any way and does not 'suck'. But apparently 'it sucks' is good enough logic for you to use in dismissing the argument. Very disappointing.....

 

If you want PvP, add all loot gained in the scene to the Oracle's bounty upon death. (An idea that Chris said he would implement way back in R20-ish).

 

Here we go again. I am a little surprised that SOTA started using the Carrot and Stick approach so early. Have not even released the game and they are trying the hardest they can to have PvM players quit and move on to something else. Why I have no idea other than they have convinced themselves that PvP is far more important than any other aspect of this game and the PvM players are just a nuisance for them to have to deal with. I never , ever expected this when I got in early on this game but sure enough the vocal minority has won again. They have started down the road of trying one carrot after another to get people to PvP who do not want any part of it. It is a very sad day indeed. I'm way to old to keep playing a game I do not feel has my interest at heart.