Will The PVP Flag Work?

Everquest had a similar PVP flag on their PVE servers. Players had to go to a Priest of Discord to be flagged for PVP, giving them permission to attack other flagged players. Guess what happened? Practically nobody flagged themselves for PVP. There are many reasons for this. One was flagged players couldn't receive buffs from unflagged players. So the question became why gimp yourself for a feature that practically nobody uses? But who knows maybe more players would have flagged themselves if they were allowed to be buffed by unflagged players.

Just like EQ, on WoW PVE servers players can flag themselves for PVP. But, again, practically nobody does that.

Instead, PVP players from these games made their homes on PVP servers where they can easily find like-minded individuals instead of sifting through a bunch of pure PVE players who will most likely not flag themselves because they do not enjoy "risky" or "competitive" gameplay.

Regardless, game design 101 tells us that reward should be proportional to difficulty. If you're playing a game on a higher difficulty, then you should be rewarded more than you would if you were playing the game on an easier difficulty. So the question is will the game become more difficult for a player if they flag themselves for PVP? I believe the answer is obviously yes. Players who flag themselves for PVP will have to worry about everything a pure PVEr needs to worry about plus other players. Therefore, players who flag themselves for PVP should be given rewards. This makes sense for two reasons. One was just mentioned. The second is it will get more players to flag themselves for PVP.

Thank you for reading.

 

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...estions-answered-dev-replied.2002/#post-25002

Give that a read. I think RG has a pretty good plan for the mixing of PvP/PvE lines. We will never get someone 100% against PvP to ever cross the line. We also will never get those that are 100% PvP to want those people to cross the lines. But for all those in between everyone has their price they are willing to pay.

That quote isn't a set in stone mechanic it's a snippet of what the thought process is for building a co existing world without segregation.

 

That sounds like what I was saying just in a more timid way and it was done in 2013. Hopefully, Garriott was able to convince the rest of his team.

There needs to be some kind of incentive for PVP just like there is for PVE. When players kill a NPC or go on a quest they get rewards: experience, items, etc. Imagine if players were told to PVE without rewards. PVE for the sake of PVEing. That wouldn't work for very long. So there needs to be some kind of in-game incentive to facilitate PVP and to tempt players to PVP.

 

The problem with SOTA PVP is that it is only about being able to loot someone else or compete for a resource node, not anything more grand. Looking forward to some meaning being added to drive that real purpose into PVP.

 

When you compartmentalize the different types of PvP, arena, battle ground, quest (ie contraband smuggling quest), open PvP. The rewards are there.

Shardfalls have the more abundant spawns of rare ore and creatures. Arena and battle grounds can have a reward for success. Quest based PvP is pretty easy to visualize rewards. It's only open PvP that is the issue.

Open PvP does not get a reward for simply flagging and I believe that is the confusion more people have. Rewarding successful in open PvP is too exploitable and rewarding flagging is forcing people to flag. If the reward is high enough it's punishment for not flagging.

 

Another big problem is that you have to be "good" at PvE to be good at PvP.

This doesn't balance well.

 

What did you have in mind? If you're worried about two or more players getting together and taking turns killing each other, I think this is easily preventable. Port could have it so players will only get credit for killing the same player once every hour or so. Players would quickly realize that it's much easier to go out and hunt a multitude of players than to pair up with a friend and exploit.

I think you're misusing the word "force" here. Providing incentives/rewards for players to flag for PVP isn't forcing anyone to do anything, just like giving better loot and more experience to players who kill relatively strong NPCs versus weak NPCs doesn't force players to only engage strong NPCs.

I feel like this is just a negative spin on what is being suggested. This could be said about almost every aspect of the game. For instance, players are rewarded and given incentive to craft. But to the person who doesn't craft they will not get anything (with respect to crafting). Technically, one could spin this by saying they're being punished for not crafting.

 

Isn't looting the reward for the simple player on player combat?

 

This mindset has been brought out by MANY in the past. Your reward for PvP is the ability to fight an intelligent monster - That is all you really need.

You are once again trying to bring it to the surface that a PvP player should get, what; more exp., more resources, higher end resources? Those are the ONLY things out there avail. The answer is NO.

This has been covered over and OVER, You have Shardfalls and other places you can PvP at will. You can kill any other PvP flagged player you find. You can loot some of the stuff from said player when you kill them, One item from Inv, and one item from Worn, and a Trophy. Have to wait for a ransom to be paid or not but that is it. There will also be some places where PvP will result in full loot of your victim.

NOTHING else should be awarded, given, or offered up. There will NOT be more or special Resources in the PvP lands unless they are SPECIFICALLY PvP related.

That is how it is , asking for more over and over will not get it changed.

This game will NOT become a land of two facets, and will not becomes a "first person shooter" medieval / D&D type game.

Any point you try and make to try and say something different all boils down to the same idea - "more for PvP players, or more Targets for PvP player" . . . . .

 

Well, I'm a PVPer; and I like PVPing a lot and, no, that's not all we really need.

Do PVErs need only to kill monsters and not receive any experience or items? Should the sheer act of killing a monster be reward enough? That's almost as silly as what you just wrote. Sure, players like questing and killing monsters in itself. I know I do. But you also need rewards. That's how RPGs work and one of the things that keeps people coming back for more.

Yes, because players who flag themselves are in a sense playing on a harder difficulty. They have to deal with what a pure PVEr has to deal with and they have to deal with players. Therefore, they should be rewarded.

If enough people articulately express themselves and offer good arguments for why something should be changed then it is very likely that it will be changed.

 

You can get your rewards for PVP when the Guild wars come into the game in release 25, So its up to you to see what rewards/Losses are available on winning or losing a war.
So a set timescale ( number of days) for a war to begin and end, loser pays.

 

I was never a big fan of PvP flags for the same reason the OP mentioned (even though i rocked the PvP flag in both those games). But if their was some kind of bonus system in place make it more useful. Maybe try and make sure whatever rewards is given that it should be mainly useful to PvPers so PvEers dont feel like they are missing out to much.. Idk, but anyway to make PvP more meaningful Im all for.

 

That pushes PvP from attacking targets that require skill to targets that are easy and fast for more efficient leveling. So you've just created a cannibalistic PvP setup that kills new player retention. It's easy to make code that stops the exploit but it's not easy to make code that stops the exploit while having the human reaction in mind.

Not misused at all. It's 100% correct. Either the "reward" is not enough to bait anyone into PvP or it's enough that PvPing is too much reward. There is no middle ground.

1: not crafting when the system design splits crafting from combat is punishing yourself.
2: crafting has a major difference that makes it not comparable. Gathering of mats = time. Cost of vendor mats = overhead. Time to produce end product = time.

If one does not gather, then they are punishing themselves.
Overhead is gold and if someone spends time out farming gold to cover the cost of overhead it all evens out.
Production time, again, time if money if time is being used to gain money somewhere else. Still evens out.

So if someone passes on gathering, and selling of the things gather, they are punishing themselves. But the overhead and production can be covered by some other method of gaming.

What it really boils down to is open PvP can't be the way it was in UO pre-Tram. Forced PvP will send people packing. Baiting people to flag open PvP won't work unless you make it painful to not flag. All other forms of PvP can be rewarded IF you are successful in PvP.

RG's example is much more fitting. For example (not saying this is what they will do, only an example along the lines of RGs post I linked) A major city is under siege from the "evil forces" in the game. While under siege, all homes in that city become unaccessible. This siege happens to be a PvP siege. If people wish to restore order to the city they will want to jump into the PvP and help out. That or they can wait till the siege is over.

The PvPers that are attacking the city gain rewards based on how long the battle lasted, enemies killed, structures destroyed, etc.
The PvPers that are defending the city gain rewards based on how well they defend the city. (length of battle, number off losses, structures destroyed, etc)

There is no forcing PvP in that example but there is a small amount of pain for not aiding in the PvP. AND, this is huge and where I believe WoW fails miserably, PvP isn't tucked away in some ignored instance.

 

Again, this is easy to remedy provided Port creates some sort of ranking system. A person who has killed a lot could be worth more than somebody who is new to PVP. Nevertheless, this is something that will have to be dealt with no matter what. It has nothing to do with the idea of rewarding players for flagging or rewarding players for participating in world PVP. With or without the implementation of those two ideas there will be players going after weaker targets. Personally, I'll be going after the stronger targets because they'll be the ones dropping better gear.

This is just a false dichotomy. I have no problem imagining a middle ground where a player who doesn't normally PVP ponders over the idea of PVP a little more than usual because of the incentives tied to it.

I think you misunderstood my point. The point is almost every aspect of the game can be spun in the following way "If I want A, then I need to do B; therefore, Port is forcing me to do A in order to get B." It's just a weird way of looking at things and I don't see it as valid criticism. If Port provides incentives or rewards for players to flag for PVP, then I see it as meaningless to suggest that they're forcing people to PVP. Let's say a particular NPC gives a lot of experience and has a higher chance to drop a good quality item compared to other NPCs. Is Port "forcing" me to kill that particular NPC in order to get those rewards? I guess, technically, in a sense that's true, but it's only trivially true (i.e. irrelevant). Look at the example you gave: "While under siege, all homes in that city become unaccessible. This siege happens to be a PvP siege. If people wish to restore order to the city they will want to jump into the PvP and help out. That or they can wait till the siege is over." So, according to your own reasoning, people would be "forced" to PVP if they wanted to regain access to their homes. In all seriousness though your suggestion is invasive because it actually injects itself into a person's game. A person could be minding their own business then bam, they better PVP or they won't have access to their home. My suggestion is very passive in comparison. It just says if you want these rewards then you come and PVP. It's the same thing you see in PVE. If you want this quest item then you kill this NPC. If you want good drops then you kill this rare mob over here. Etc.

Where did I write anything about forcing PVP? I suggested that Port provide incentives to players for flagging for PVP.

 

I don't PvP cuz I suck at it. I won't get better. I'm cannon fodder, and happy to play it under some circumstances - totally RP. I strongly disagree that PvP is somehow harder than other aspects of the game, or that the risks are greater. How about I challenge you to a poetry duel, 10,000 gold wager. How about when that dastard from the next town threatens my wife?
[edited for clarity]

 

Allow me to clarify. The main way to progress in SotA is through PVE. So no matter what one does, they will need to progress through PVE. There will be players who will only stick with PVE. And then there will be players who, in addition to that, will flag themselves for PVP--so they'll have to worry about both the PVE and PVP elements of the game. I'm merely saying the latter is more difficult than the former which isn't the same as saying PVP is more difficult than PVE.

 

Flagging for PVP is purely voluntary. I assume people do it because they are highly competitive and enjoy engaging in virtual violence. I'm not convinced that those who flag for PVP need a special reward for doing so, however, any more than I need a special reward for writing plays, poems, stories, etc. I always thought that doing what we enjoy doing is reward enough.

Perhaps I'm naive.

 

There will always be people that target the soft targets, those that are not a challenge by game function. Providing a reward for targeting those players only compounds the issue.

Let's say I agree with you. You and I can figure out something we can see as a balanced incentive. We are only 2, that could represent a fairly large group of players that seemingly think the same way. But no matter how much we try we will never find the balance for ALL play styles. From all your posts, you built a picture that allows people to see what your perspective is. Not everyone will be on board with that perspective and no matter how much we try the balance will never fit 100% of the player base. If you can't see things from their perspective you can't see how this will make them feel force to PvP or be punished for not PvPing.

Now imagine PvP giving a bonus. Just because you simply flag PvP everything has MORE? Not sure why you can't see the issue.

Oh and the siege is temporary, anything you want to do is still available in another town, and your home will be accessible as soon as the siege is over. Living in a major city will have better protections like the tesla tower. That's not invasive, it's a temporary discomfort. Very different.

The second you bring up adding a reward for simply flagging open PvP you are writing about forcing PvP. It's not an incentive. Why? Because you are giving a PvE bonus to PvPers. Anyone not PvPing will be at a reduced rate.

Give PvP a reward for being successful at PvP. Not a bonus reward for PvEing while PvPing.

 

I have one solution that would work, but it wont be implemented because people would yell "no not WoW". One thing that could be done is have the pvp areas be like the instanced battlegrounds in wow, but with resources, and then there would be the same amount of people on both teams. They could put the special resources and the special crafting tables and everything in there.

 

Isn't that a shardfall?