PvP Zones : The richest 1% get richer?

That's just it. These rares are not the draw. The fact that there will be the same rares in the other 95% and the addition of the jobs board removes the lure.

The need for risk/reward has nothing to do with playstyle. Both PvP and PvE need risk.

 

I am not a PvPer by any stretch. You clearly seem to think that the risk vs reward ratios are not fair because the reward is greater in a PvP zone. If you feel the reward is worth more than the risk in a PvP zone, why not go harvest in a PvP zone? You aren't being forced to but the option is there if you think the risk vs reward its unbalanced. I know that I may gather in PvP zones much like I gathered in Felucca. It is about all that did in Felucca other than train skills that were easier to train in Felucca.

I don't think PvP players are hogging anything. Frankly, PvE players are hogging if anyone is hogging. We want the rare resources without the risk. No concerns though... if the balance is wrong then PvPers will harvest in non-PvP zones as well. The only reason we are getting rare resources at all in non-PvP zones is because it was promised that you didn't HAVE to PvP and it gives access to harvestable rare resources for those playing SPO.

 

Because many people do not want to ever PVP.

For this reason alone there needs to be an equivalent risk-reward for pure PVE players.

 

Sorry, this is completely not true...I don't care what anyone thinks of one side hogging this or hogging that...PVErs are just not wanting t0o play pvp...it's not because they don't want a challenge(such a bizarre statement), it's because the majority do not want to deal with the personalities it attracts. Thats my reasoning. I don't want rare resources without risk, by all means make it risky. I'm sick to death of hearing that those that don't pvp don't want risk....It's beyond insulting.

 

The way it sounds now is that this whole thing is pretty much happening. That dude on the other page. Ristra. Posted a link to the kickstarter webpage, and one of the stretch goals mentioned metories and randomly appearing PvP zones for those who are watching carefully, or something to that effect. It said there would be PvP specific resources there.

Welp sounds like this is all over now. Now I suppose the people complaining about needing more risk and reward for PvE have nothing to be upset about.

Although I'm still waiting for @Lollie to propose a solution to something. After rereading all of this there really isn't any argument as to why there is a problem in the first place with anything, let alone a solution to anything.


I really want to hear your proposed solution that will make the risk vs reward the same for PvE players, and PvP players. Can you also explain what risks PvE players have that PvP players don't have?

 

The problem is as I already explained above. You didn't re-read well enough, considering the post is directly above your own.

 

You're joking right? Unless it is invisible, or you write in secret code I think there is something strange.

You have been asked several times what your solution to the problem will be and your best answer is this???

I directly asked you what risk PvE players have that PvP players don't have, and you can't answer the question. That's fine.

All I can say is if you have no other feedback other than "many people do not want to ever PvP" either you are mocking me (type 1) or maybe you aren't aware that you didn't answer the questions (type2).

Type 1- If you are insulting my intelligence, that is considered trolling and I suggest you read this.
Type 2- If you aren't aware that you didn't actually answer my questions, I will ask you again now that you are aware that I didn't actually get any question answered.

Questions:
1) I really like to hear your proposed solution that will make the risk vs reward the same for PvE players, and PvP players. 2) Can you also explain what risks PvE players have that PvP players don't have?

 

The only strange thing is you can't see the post above your previous one.

 

is rune74 your alt?

so you just hate PvPers because you have a predjudice that they bring in bad personalities.

Thanks I know which type you are and I will be placing you on my ignore list. I have no interest in feading anything that supports being against a legal playstyle especially when your mannars are no different than a PvPer.

I'm done in this thread this is just an Anti-PvP sentiment, and nobody is really raising a game mechanic issue regarding the shardfalls and resources.

Motives revealed! that's why I'm the guy behind the guy. I'm the one and only timelord. Well I'm not that other timelord, I'm the only timelord smith.

 

Um what? For the record I don't hate pvpers....this is another post about PVPers being victims to somehow sway an arguement? Lets please stop doing this.

 

I think he is replying to Lollie who said the post above his first post was the answers to his questions. A post that I notice that you just deleted. because I was watching this thread.

I think his post is valid. I saw your post.

EDIT: I'm out of here. This thread is becoming moderation bait.

 

Say what? I didn't delete any posts.

 

oh I see your post it is up higher than I thought. I withdraw my statement.

 

Apology accepted

 

I can absolutely agree with much of this. I have a lack of interest in the PvP community because it is a sum of its parts and some of its parts (i.e. individual PvPers) are not something I have any interest in gaming with.

I can agree that there is risk in PvE. I can agree that PvEers want the risk that exists in PvE. How do you possibly duplicate the risk of open PvP in an environment with PvE threats (i.e. PvP zone) when you only have PvE threats (i.e. non-PvP zone) to duplicate the risk with?

How many PvE threats should we add? Monsters have a determined spawn location and are much less mobile than a PvP threat. Depending upon rubber banding and other considerations, you can always mitigate the risk of PvE threats to some extent over and above your ability to mitigate the threat of a PvPer's mobility. Monsters will clump up and make soft AoE targets. PvPers will adjust their tactics and spread out if they are getting hammered with AoE attacks rather than doing whatever that were coded to do.

There are many issues in PvE where designers have to make decisions and players adjust our develop new tactics. True, tactics are evolving in PvP but that is kind of the point. PvPers can adopt new tactics much faster than PvEers are forced to adopt new tactics because the designers changed the code for how PvE threats behave. PvE threats are very static and PvP threats are dynamic. How ate you going to recreate the dynamic threats of PvP with relatively static PvE threats?

How strong should we make the PvE threats? You know exactly what you are rolling into in many cases and are prepared for the PvE threat. By their very nature, PvP zones are more dynamic then a static PvE zone. Tell me how you can prepare for PvP threats that may or may not exist in unknown numbers to the same extent. So the PvE threat is stronger. Does the AI of the PvE present anywhere near the threat as a PvPer's consciousness?

If the correlation between the risk of PvP and PvE was as strong as you are suggesting then there would be a LOT less discussion in these forums and some off the threads would be a LOT shorter.

 

I don't see it as simple as changing tactics adding more risk....I see pvp guilds camping that area and harvesting with other members of their guild or with a deal they made with their buddies to allow pretty much control of an area.

Yes, they have some monsters in the area they may have to deal with....what's stopping them from having monsters like dragons or really high level enemies guarding nodes? As for the static enemies, that is a poor game design choice to mimic basic MMO behavior....I'm hoping they have roving monsters not always in the same spot but walking around. You don't need to have the same level of monsters that a pvp player has in that zone, you have more and more difficult, which in effect raises the difficulty level.

 

I agree rune_74. I have just had another random thought come into my head.
For PvE it could be not just the AI difficulty but also the location. They could indeed promote extra resource spawns for PvE if they rotated the spawn around often in a random order, and it could have difficult monsters that would be around in different terrain. One would have to search, fight, and then gather. It would help with the scripting part of it also. The lore could be that smaller shards fell astray from the larger shardfall areas, and randomly fall around the world. They would be small pockets but hefty in resources, and not around very long. Each one with a random time duration.

 

I think what is forgotten here, is that everywhere a PvP player goes has more risk for them. So PvE zones (which is a silly term I think because they're really just zones - unless they are safe for all players and allow no attacking), anyways, making zones riskier for more payoff is something I am sure they will do as well. But for a PvP player tackling dangerous monsters, they can have another player come up and kill them and steal their loot (maybe they can steal it, maybe they can't and it's just Envy on the prowl). It's always riskier for a PvP player. So putting a few more resources in a zone that has an open PvP flag isn't going to suddenly make PvP players rich.

How many nodes total does the zone have? Is it 10% more? 15% more? We don 't know.

And what IF a pvp guild camps - at what point is it "worth it" or "not worth it"? I mean if you have 10 players in a zone trying to mine it and they made a "deal with their buddies" to own the zone... wouldn't it be more effective to just try and find an area that has 80% as many nodes but not as many people mining? These resources are available everywhere, there are just more (that is a qualitative word, not quantitative).

Until we know how many more resources, how rare they are, how unobtainable they are elsewhere, etc. it's not worth going back and forth like this. I've played games where the rarest nodes were ONLY in pvp zones, and even then guilds didn't get together to camp the zone. Sure you'd have a group of folks sometimes coming to kill miners but it wasn't all the time and you were able to run away. But there just weren't enough of these nodes to make it worth coming in force.

Why don't we just wait a little? Let them implement some of it or try it out and then help them balance it. I can't see it impacting my world whether I choose to go there or not. If they come in with 10 times as many nodes we can yell at them then.

 

Well we are all in a kind of limbo, and when we are left to our own stray thoughts anticipating the elusive Chris post we often go into speculation mode. Some of us are reliving nostalgia of ganking, others are reliving the grief of being ganked. Equal amounts of understanding should be involved on both sides I guess. This is like an eternal war of philosophies. It is hard to find middle ground when one feels oppressed. And right now both sides are feeling oppressed lol. I think there is something to be said for the Ideas to promote pvp that does not involve the pve crowd, and conversely speaking something to promote the virtues of non violence. It would be a better balance. Have PvP (people that have killed for good and bad) zones and pve zones for people that have never shed a drop of another s blood. Both could be high level instances and give each their own playstyles a benefit. To be totally bloodshed free would be a hard achievement would it not? There might be pathways to change your virtue status to be able to enter these zones. Sorry just spitballing here.

 

I think discussing it has a lot of value...I mean we could just wait until everything is laid out with no discussion but these boards would really be dead then.