Community Talk about PVP - Opinions, Ideas and Suggestions (Poll inside)

Absolutely. Because its not about challenge and risk - anyone 'incentivised' to enter a PvP zone for reasons other than 'they want to PvP' is being set up as easy gank fodder.

 

This ship has sailed long ago. Even more so since we have not heard a word about castle sieges after the failure of the obsidian trials and the new focus on fishing (get the ship has sailed joke?)

 

Yeah, but what if you want to play a knight ? Forget it, even with GM in all of the blades and heavy armor stuff, you still have to play a mage - and go through 12 circles of magic you don't care about and don't wanna use so you can get enough resist not to die right off the bat. And even then, and even if you get all the best equipment in the game it's a crap shoot.

I guess PvP is just not for me if it means having to level EVERYTHING up and be like everyone else and run meteor showers and ring of fire. It's really depressing.

You know what tho - keep doing it this way, and keep wondering why PvP seems dead. No brainer.

 

The way this game is designed you stand virtually no chance unless you only fight people the builds you like to use directly counter. Not all types of builds are viable.

You have to have spell shields to high levels and be ready to use the correct one.

You have to have your magic skills to high levels or any mage with more than one type of spell damage can absolutely nuke you.

You have to have good physical defense and health or a high level weapon user can absolutely nuke you.

You have to have all healing and life utility skills to high level to avoid dying in 2 seconds. Or use death magic extensivly.

And with every pvper you are not going to encounter just one of these things. They will have them all. And you will need them all to hold your own.

So the level of skills is not as much the issue as you just needing all of them to avoid being nuked. This is the main thing for me that makes me not enjoy open pvp in shroud that usually ends up being 1v1. I like the obsidian trials tho because a win a coin now and then, and the game becomes “try to get a coin” which is a goalachievable in an FFA where the minmaxxy guys are distracting each other.

 

Here is how you resolve this issue..

Place a stretch goal to PAY for a pure PVP server and see how long it lasts. Not only will you need to pay for it, there needs to be a certain percentage of monthly subscribers to ensure it stays online.

 

They could make a stretchgoal for a server without PVP.
Then I would ask the same questions
Looking at numbers of this poll i don't think it would be very successful.

 

Antrax... Your poll is heavily skewed towards PVP if you look at the metrics AND the title of the post.. MOST PVE players will not bother with PVP posts because it is constantly the same thing, WE NEED to go PVP everywhere and PVP is what drives this game.... You want proof... Ask @Chris to post the percentages of PVE vs PVE over the last 6 months...

 

Not trying to be pedantic here, but the base game is not non-consensual PvP server.
Every penny I've invested into the game thus far has been supporting a PvE world with no non-consensual PvP.

I don't think your poll is very indicative of anything, I'm afraid. Firstly, its a very small sampling of the community. Secondly, many of the options are heavily skewed to a Pro-PVP mindset
Thirdly, allowing multiple votes just makes it even more messy. Still, taking what's there -

22.9% dont like pvp but think pvpers should have their own incentives (14.7% think these incentives should be PvP-related)
11% want PvP removed from the game
14.7% want ransoms removed from the game
16.5% say the cost of entry for PvP is too high

The highest scoring thing on this entire poll
42.2% for a faction system 'for those who have chosen to join one' (ie consensual pvp)
31.2% is "I like both and pvp needs incentives"

You're missing a whole lot of alternatives, and also limiting a lot of the answers with the use of "and this or that".
My first impression looking at those results is:

1- Not a lot of people care enough to be bothered to even vote on it
2-Of those that did vote on it, results are split all over the place.
3- Your "PvE" options are all absolutes, "I want PvP to be removed from the game" - which isn't reasonable (still, it got 11%)

I don't think you'll get a meaningful poll on these forums, if I'm honest. But if you wanted more indicative numbers, I'd come up with better questions.
Me for example, I have no objection to PvPers doing their thing, and I wouldn't want to see it removed from the game (and indeed, have not voted that option, as I don't think its a fair solution by any means). But I'm also not really bothered if it gets more love, as I think the ability to pvp in every scene in the game, having your ransom system, as well as have a dozen dedicated forced pvp zones, many of which have PvE enticements (such as most direct routes to quest areas) is sufficient. I'm certainly not going to participate under those conditions, but if there were no ransom I'd be a lot more tempted. Because PvP in shroud almost inevitably ends up being a case of the hard-core dedicated pvper roflstomping anyone who flags up to try it out, the ransom system is just a big price tag for participation - a huge disincentive.

II'll give you an example - take these options -
I would enjoy non-consensual open world PvP everywhere with full loot
I would enjoy non-consensual open world PvP everwhere with some sort of ransom/justice system determining reward/loss
I would enjoy an opt-in open world PvP everywhere with full loot
I would enjoy an opt-in open world PvP everywhere with some sort of ransom/justice system determining reward/loss (This is closest to what we have now)
I would enjoy an opt-in open world PvP everywhere with no loot/penalties ("just for fun")
I would enjoy an opt-in PvP in certain scenes only (This would be akin to removing the forced multiplayer on PvP scenes)
I would enjoy an opt-in PvP battleground/scenes with objectives for group play
I would not enjoy any sort of PvP activity

I think very few would tick that they dont enjoy PvP -at all- most people would like to dabble a bit.
Less will like having it forced on them.
Even less if the entry cost is high and there's no incentives/fun for the loser.

If its straight up lose money/stuff then it becomes 'if you can't win, don't bother'. So a lot of us simply don't bother.

I strongly believe that Sota needs to have "PvP for PvPers"

Stop trying to add PvE incentives to it. Stop trying to drag people who will NEVER want to do it into it. Make it rewarding for its own sake, instead of just a massive face slap for all but the elite, and you'll see either one of two things:
a) More people will try it out because they don't lose anything for trying, might have fun and do it more
b) People still wont bother, because they aren't interested in PvP. At least then you'll have your answer.

At the moment I suspect a lot of people aren't interested in PvP because its a costly waste of time for no potential benefit whatsoever. Remove the cost and you'll see if people are interested. Simply adding a PvE benefit creates a situation in which people still aren't interested in PvP but feel like they have to do it or they are missing out - this just creates resentment and does nothing to improve PvP play.

As an aside? If I could earn the cool stuff from Obsidian Trials by simply playing it, without the requirement being to WIN the whole thing? I'd be there ALL day farming coins for the chance at cool emotes. I'm sure there are others who would as well. Sure, winners should get more rewards, but gating all the rewards behind winning the entire match hundreds of times -something most non-hardcore-pvp players will simply never be able to do - makes it downright unappealing. You want to get people in there, let us earn something for being there. If I only manage one kill per round its gonna take me a long time -and that's okay - at least its possible. Currently, its impossible, and so it again goes into the "why bother" bucket.

 

Yeah, no.

I want PvPers to feel this game is rewarding for them., and i would support any good ideas to improve the pvp even if i wont touch it. With the exceptions of " another server " , and without forcing pvp on people who dont want it.

 

I would add

I would enjoy arena style opt-in PvP (1 v 1)
I would enjoy arena style opt-in PvP (group N v N)
I would enjoy character and gear balanced opt in PvP

and allow people to pick multiple options.

I would also say that in open world PvP there needs to more mechanics to tip the balance of power from the aggressor to the victim.
PvP should be fun for both sides. Giving the victim ways to defend themselves and avoid PvP (with active play) makes it more fun for the victim (at lest for me).
As the victim, in the game of cat and mouse, escaping is just as much a victory as defeating the aggressor.

Regards
Spung

 

Being within a warring guild currently flags you as killable by everyone flagged as PvP so essentially exactly the same as being individually flagged.

This is a mind blowingly ridiculous game design decision.

As I have posted before a number of times can we please have a proper guild war system ? If fishing can get it's Uber update surely guild wars can ? @DarkStarr @Chris @Lord British

 

Something like in UO on the Trammel facet is what I am looking for. I will explain for those that never played UO or never played guildwars in UO. If you were in a warring guild and playing on Trammel, this was what people looked like to you:

• People with blue names are innocents that you are not at war with and cannot be attacked. You can perform beneficial acts like healing and buffing on them (unless they are in a warring guild that is not at war with your guild. Then you cannot attack them, but you cannot heal them either).
  
• People with grey names are criminals that can be attacked by anyone. Performing beneficial acts on them temporarily flags you as a criminal.
  
• People with red names are murderers that can be attacked by anyone. Performing beneficial acts on them temporarily flags you as a criminal.
• People with orange names are non-murderers that are at war with you. You can attack them. You can perform beneficial acts like healing and buffing on them.

I would like to see the following improvements:

• People in warring guilds can be recognized as such by others that are not in enemy guilds. In UO it was often frustrating to see some blues trying to heal you in PvE and being confused because they could not, and you'd always have to explain "warring guild". Better they see that you are warring, and don't waste their time on you.
• There is an "allie" option. In UO, we also declared war on our allies in order to be able to do stuff to them (like healing and ressing). This required everyone to always have our guild war list at hand to know which orange is an actual enemy and which is an allie. In SotA, where you can toggle off your guild tag, it is especially important that you can easily distinguish friend from foe. Performing negative acts against allies should require a confirmation, so you do not accidently hit them with your AoEs on the battlefield but can still backstab them in case of, say, roleplayed treachery.

 

This is exactly what we need - Had a fantastic time for many years in Trammel-Europa thanks in a very large part to the guild war system in UO

 

And what is stopping you from pvping in unransomable gear??? Wont do enough damage? Dont like the risk involved with your real gear? Typical... nobody cares about incentives anymore, everyone wants easymode...... pathetic

 

I guess you have never seen Vallo Frostbane videos.... everything you list here is not true. You can be pure focused in 1 aspect and blow people up just as fine. Damage is very avoidable in this game, its not all bent on resisting. There are MANY ways to avoid damage, even spell damage.

 

I made a post about helping OT succeed that mentioned exactly this and I couldnt agree more. I have been actively petitioning for this, but oddly enough the pushback comes from the PvP community, some want only winning to be rewarded.

 

If only winning is rewarded, then only people who have a good chance of winning will even play. And so it sits, empty. =/

 

When I PVP, sometimes it is in store-bought gear, and sometimes not. It's certainly a tradeoff - I almost always loose in unlootable gear. If the goal is to be fodder so others can enjoy PVP, I suppose that meets the goal. The solutions you suggested do not address the real problem. Anyone can be unhelpful and call me a lilly-livered freeloader, but it doesn't change the significant hurdles blocking a decent-sized PVP player base, and it doesn't change the fact that PVP participants here are few and far between. Most potential PVP players, the PVP fodder which the top 10% want, are not going to purchase unlootable gear from the addon store with real dollars just so they can take a knife to a gunfight. Sure, a few might make that investment, and a few of those might stick around long enough to get all their attunements up to 80 or 90*, and a few of those might finally switch to real gear and be competitive. But we'll lose players at each step along the way.

To sum it up, this path to building a PVP player base has too many attrition hurdles.
Path 1:
1. Know that there is unlootable gear.
2. Buy it with real dollars, and continue to lose, not knowing if you're really getting better.
3. Spend the time to get XP to get attunements up
4. Switch to lootable gear and lose the equivalent of 1-20 dollars per day, until the player gets an education from someone who knows what they're doing

Path 2:
1. Start with lootable gear and lose the equivalent of 1-20 dollars per day. Quit PVP and/or the game.

We can all see why the best PVP players want this arrangement. We supporters of this game should not be surprised when new fodder doesn't show up with their wallets open to their fellow players, fellow players who just want cash from the fodder.

* Objection: "Upper Tears makes it super easy to do that!" Retort: "It is still a significant time sink, far more than most of us benefited from."

 

The full loot system has killed the PVP fun in UO, the ransom system in SOTA, just get rid of it and replace it by a reward system (token war coins you name it). Then people will pvp eventually. Some PVE/PVP games do it successfully, I hate comparing SOTA with warcraft but the honor system works...
Implement PVP orientated stuff or pvp craft (resilience? )
And agree with @Fruck give something to people that participate in OT without winning, and make it un tradable....
i will even add, let pvpers manage pvp without bothering PVers, dungeons are implemented, allow pvpers to set them pvp only, with faction system like a RP PVP,
go kill the PVPer mage that is leading an army of undeads or bring two groups that are able to be friends with a pack of monsters (when entering choose the kobolds, or the elves)
This becomes more then PVP, but RP with a pvp side 9which is part of RP anyway)
There is no need to add anything major for PVP, just fine tune what exists. and let the dungeon master decide on the reward (no ransom or ransom, no artifact ransom, no gear ransoms as a click menu on the stone of the dungeon...)
Allow players to have rewrads chest wether pvp or pve, pve players will have a chance to have artifacts gold gems, pvpers will have honor points that add to their honor amount

i do not agree that SOTA will survive with PVE only, games all around the place have a pvp aspect, and this community is huge as well. Just build it without bothering the PVE only guys that DO NOT want to pvp, and everybody should respect that.

 

Its plain and simple, you either put in the time to achieve things and push your character's developpement or you cry about the gap. The gap will always be there. Nobody wants to play a fps respawn shooter and no one wants no-risk pvp.