Suggestions for INCENTIVISING PVP

Which would reduce cheating on the easy level and only people with 2 or more PC's could cheat.
Nice! (Yes, it was only an example, I know)

Sorry, in any game where 2 or more players meet in a competitive situation in an uncontrolled environment (i.e. not the bench) with a clear winner and a clear looser no one wants to be the looser.
So humans will do whatever is necessary to win.
In a PvE situation, in my perception, we obviously also have a winner (the one with most dps for example; if there is a statistic) and a loser in regards to dps.
BUT
in the 5-player-in-a-dungeon PvE situation most people tent to view it as having ranked first to fifth, and the "looser" tag is assigned to the AI. This makes no one really unhappy, apart from the AI, and so far we do not have emphatic computers.
That, imo, is the reason why I bother less with players cheating in PvE than players cheating in PvP.
In PvE I might even have an advantage by clearing some areas faster from monsters if someone in my group exploits a bug.
In PvP the cheating will destroy the whole gaming experience.
As we won't see a cheat/abuse/exploit free PvP game I would prefer it if there is not added monetary/XP/resource reward in flagging for PvP.

So, I am fine with everybody joining PvP and having the ability to PvP, but I would prefer it if there is no incentive to join PvP other than the ability to PvP.

 

I have big issues with open PvP, as it has very specific risks that are hard/impossible to balance with rewards.

People with bad connection, peoplw with not enought itme to play the game, people with a lot of other issues will have all the risks of PvP, while they are unlikely to exploit the rewards.

On the other hand, metagaming groups will reduce risks of PvP to minimum for themselves yet they will get all of the rewards.

So, while PvP should be viable option, it should be option people choose because they like PvP! Not because they are interested in higher loot, better gear, and so on.

 

Yeah, ok. But are you ok with this?

That's what I had written above your first reply to me in response to another poster. I don't disagree that adding experience gain to pvp would be problematic for the reasons you defined. But that doesn't change my want to give PVP more reason than "it's fun". It's still also "risky" and "hard" in comparison to PVE. So I'd like to see more pvp only related functions that make playing "hard mode" MORE FUN.

 

For most people the word "risky" and "fun" go hand in hand.
Want to go parachuting? Bungee jumping? People pay lots of money and risk their life to have fun.
And if you introduce e.g. a "katana of player slaying" that can only be attained through PvP actions (e.g. hand in 100 player heads) then you
A) create a higher wall to have competitive PvP (the one with the katana always wins)
and
B) you ask for guild events "lets all get undressed and slay each other until everyone has 100 heads"

PvP players already have MORE FUN than the boring PvE players. Otherwise they would not PvP.

Why should there be an incentive?
If you don't like PvP, don't go there.
If you like PvP flag for it.
If you don't know if you like PvP try it and you will see if you like it.
If you get ganked 10 times by 5 PKs you might skip PvP,
If you meet a noble Drocis Fondorlatos who defends you against 2 PKs and hands you the PKs armor you might stay in PvP.

It should be the communities actions that lead the way for all players to join and enjoy PvP,
and not an artificial carrot dangling in front of our nose. (i.e. better resources spawns, XP, ...)

Imo the carrot approach is just "feeding players to the PvP community".

 

First of all, we can drop the XP for PVP...I'm not talking about that, so stop bringing it up.

Secondly, the devs have LITERALLY talked several times about doing just that, "feeding players to the pvp community". So I don't think that's at odds with the game design. Nor do I think that's bad so long as it doesn't cause people to quit the game. Since players can always opt out of PVP, I don't think it will.

What you're failing to recognize is that people that like PVP are not all the same. There is a large group of PVP enthusiasts that will be open pvp regardless of anything else. But there are an equal amount of people that pvp not because it exists, but because it's a means to an end. IF pvp simply exists, that may not (and probably won't) create an opportunity for pvp to be meaningful enough to fulfill the needs of people like myself.

PVP has to be more than just "I see someone I can kill so I will kill him".

 

I do know and recognize that there are PvP players out there with social skills, a good ping and good skills.
I recognize they are there, and I did ride with them on Europa. PvP players are not all the same.
But I am also aware that there are many other, lets call them disputable, players out there.
The rising and falling of PvP should be dictated by what kind of players are flagged for PvP and their actions, and not higher yield of a virtual resource.
So, for a PvP player it should be as well a reward to saved someone. Maybe only a handshake, but that might be the most important reward you can get.
Ah ... I might be talking about virtues there! Like ... for REAL this time! Not the "I saved your ass just to get my 5k sacrifice points to be able to buy that katana".

And, if I may ask, what are these needs you are mentioning? Are we talking about resources? Or do you mean "I have to kill 5 players trying to talk to the Oracle or it's a bad day" needs?

I totally agree with you there, and we will see how the community turn out to act.

 

absolutely not, part of what is sought by pvpers is adventure.

 

I completely agree

 

The ability to participate in PVP related systems that don't exist outside of PVP. So for example, sieges, bounty system, assassinations, body part trophies, special areas for OPEN PVP ONLY (that means you can't be a part time browser, you have to be the real deal).

That would satisfy my needs. The world of SOTA should facilitate opportunities that can not be obtained without individuals or player owned towns flagging themselves Open PVP.

 

So what you want is an excluive club that not everyone can play in?

I want to do those things you mentioned...but I don't want to be continously want to be bothered by PVP "ELITISTS"....all those thing don't sound like they should be open to all.

 

I don't mind there being PVE aspects to many of those things, but the focus should be PVP.

I didn't mention this before but Stealing is a great example of what I'm talking about. If you steal something from an NPC, who cares? No really, WHO CARES? It's a victimless completely exploitable crime with predictable results. That's why being a thief in Elder Scrolls is so stupid and pointless. (which is also why doing anything in Elder Scrolls is stupid and pointless)

It's really a PVP activity. I don't care (remember, who cares?) if they also make a PVE version of stealing for people that want to pretend they're doing something important. Great. But the focus should be on PVP. Not because I'm a pvp elitist, but because that's where the real risk is, that's where players will be held accountable and that's an example of where the pvp could be more meaningful.

 

I don't agree with anything you just said. NPC's should cared if you steal...that's part of having a game that reacts to what a player does. Victimless that it doesn't affect another player? sure...but it could, say you steal from a shop...it sells these great axes but you stole the last one and he can't make money off it to buy more to sell....that is an effect.

It is all your opinion that it is stupid and pointless...

This opinion of yours that those that enjoy PVE can pretend we are doing something important is a bit insulting. This whole idea that the focus should be on PVP first for everything really gets grating. I mean where do we draw the line? This was never anounced as a PVP game with some PVE stuff thrown in.

Risk is relative and almost impossible to put a level on....

 

I never said NPC's shouldn't do stuff and react to things. Fine, great, wonderful. Do that.

Yes, it's just my opinion. Just like some people have the opinion it's not stupid and pointless.

I find it insulting when people say PVE is not stupid and pointless, so we're even. But I also didn't say that the focus of "everything" should be on pvp. I said that pvp related systems should be focused on pvp. I also said that if the devs want to make elements of those systems translate to PVE, ok sure do that too. But the incentive to pvp should be that there are some really robust and interesting systems that are focused and designed for PVP only.

In addition, I suggested that some areas of the game be PVP only. There already are some of those areas, like Shardfalls, but I would suggest there be more of them. And I would also suggest they have more impact, like some of them should be control points. And I would suggest that some of them only allow people that are flagged as OPEN PVP to enter.

That's incorrect there's an entire industry of risk professionals that make a living doing exactly what you say is impossible to do.

 

I think you know perfectly well I meant risk in pvp.

 

You clearly did not understand my post.

 

Sorry, I wasn't trying to use semantics. But my point remains, if we can identify risk in other things, we can do it in pvp vs. pve.

This is a good book:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Measure-Anything-Intangibles-Business/dp/0470539399

 

I agree that PvP should have incentives, but I don't agree that it should be forced. Too many reasons already illustrated in this thread why forcing PvP is not a good idea.

However, I also think that the incentives should only be applicable to those that choose to participate in PvP -- they should be the only ones that are really concerned with the specific rewards they can potentially get. A number of other games have done this and done it well.

Example incentives (not necessarily fully thought out):

• PvP-only zones, including cities and dungeons (perhaps no resource gathering in these areas), that are not in any way beneficial or required to travel through for any non-PvP aspect of the game.
• Gear that is only usable in PvP combat that is either cosmetic or offer bonuses specific to PvP combat (account bound).
• Special titles earned only through PvP.
• Furniture and other household items that you can only obtain either directly through PvP or within PvP-only areas and can only be placed in PvP-only structures (account bound).
• Special housing that is only allowed to be placed in PvP-only areas.

Essentially nothing that would give any kind of progression advantage in the areas of the game unrelated to PvP. The simple fact of the matter, as others have stated, is that PvP is polarizing. There are going to be two communities within the game and the division will be PvP. That should be embraceed, but handled in a way that carefully ensures that those who choose not to PvP don't feel slighted.

 

I agree with you. And the OP doesn't do a great job explaining that the devs mentioned a number of these things in the recent telethon, but they were not very precise and it was difficult to tell what would really be in the game and what would not. But yes, I agree this is the direction to go.

Although, you just gave me a really good incentive idea. Instead of making items and "stuff" that can only be used in a pvp zone...how about making items and "stuff" that can only be used in pvp zones OR if you're open pvp? NICE!

So if you get all these cool pvp only |007z and you decorate your home with them, that home has to be in a pvp zone or they don't work. If you go outside a pvp zone, the items go directly into your bank. If you are flagged open pvp then the items work wherever you go or on whatever you own. But if you remove your open pvp flag then all the items and stuff go back in your bank. POOF

I love that.

 

That might work, as long as you're talking about gear that provide no clear benefit over non-PVP gear. In the example I gave before, PvP gear might have bonuses (stats, enchantments, what have you), but that they should only be directed toward PvP encounters. For example, a sword with an enchantment that gives blade skills a slightly faster cooldown at the expense of a slight focus cost increase when in PvP combat only. Again, not entirely thought out because this would be a problem in the case where an Open PvP player is engaging a monster and a player at the same time. Just an example.

 

Yeah, I hear you. I'm not ready to create a gear based game. I just like the idea that if you don't flag yourself open to pvp then you're limited in how you can use pvp stuff. I especially like that it would keep people from farming PVP stuff and then trying to sell it in safe areas where they couldn't risk losing it.