Twitch Upcoming!

We're delaying our Twitch till AFTER a very specific KS update. You'll know what one, we'll talk about the twitch in the update. We need all hands to get this one ready.
Which still means something good is coming.
https://www.twitch.tv/missingworldsmedia

Rotty's stream ended.
Check him out at right here

How should the PvP phase play? Give your visions here

227 posts / 0 new
Last post
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
How should the PvP phase play? Give your visions here

Since the PvP phase is going to be the same as the PvE phase, but with player-on-player action enabled, I pondered how to make it work in a way that would represent a world full of heroes, villains, vigilantes and scoundrels.
And then the thought occurred to me that only villains should be able to attack anyone without provocation. Or, said another way, that attacking anyone without provocation is the act of a villain, by definition.

That thought lead to the next. What if in the PvP world, everyone was flagged neutral until they attacked someone. In other words, you don't start off as a member of any faction like in all other games with PvP. This would accurately simulate a real city with a bunch a chaos injectors, er... Player Characters.

Since the PvP phase would still have the same missions and streetsweeping that the PvE phase has, interacting with NPCs to either support or stop a crime would flag you as a hero or villain, regardless of your actual loyalties. Thus allowing other players the opportunity to attack you, thereby flagging them as the opposite, and so on and so on, until the domino chain of who attacks whom reaches its end. Anyone who attacks a hero or a neutral flagged player will be marked a villain until the end of combat regardless of how many villain flagged characters they also attack. So it is entirely possible for combat to devolve into a battle royale between a number of villain flagged characters each out for him or herself. Hero flagged players would have to be allies or else lose their hero status. (Hmmm.... this would make an interesting model of human system dynamic behavior!) After combat there would have to be a cooldown period until the flag goes away and you are flagged neutral again. The cooldown timer would have to be lengthy to allow people who play heroes to retaliate against the villain-flagged players who ganked them.

This way, PvP players would be able to choose what they want to be on a case by case basis. In other words, a player can be a villain one battle and a hero the next. Oh, and what happens inside a mission instance, stays inside a mission instance ;)

An elegantly simple emergent property of this is the true realization of playing a vigilante. So if there were some Rooks gang members just loitering, but not engaging in any actual criminal acts, would you be willing to flag yourself as a villain to complete your "subdue 10 Rooks" quest? That's what a vigilante or a villain would do. But a hero would scan the neighborhood and only subdue those Rooks who were actively participating in a crime: like B&E, purse-snatching or arson. A hero would often be handicapped by the very morals they claim to espouse, while a vigilante player would also suffer from the morally ambiguous life they lead.

The more I think about it the more I like it. But I'm too close to see any holes in it and would need other points of view to find them. (edit: how would friendly fire work for AoE abilities? hmmm)

Finally, I would expect that there would be some threshold of infamy that, once reached, would permanently mark you as a villain and you would be fair game for all heroes (and NPC) to attack on sight without being flagged as villains themselves. I would expect that there would be a bounty board for villains so infamous. Once someone reaches that threshold, their cooldown timer becomes infinite and they won't be marked neutral again until they start doing enough redeeming acts to bring it below the threshold, or until they are defeated and go through the criminal justice system. The converse would not be necessary for a heroic threshold. Since anyone can attack a hero at any time if they want to be flagged a villian, there would really be no need to flag someone as a hero in the same way as flagging a villain other than for vanity purposes, or maybe as a buffer against an inadvertent attack on a neutral. I suppose surpassing the hero threshold should also put you on the bounty board for villains.

This same flagging concept has been done similarly in other sandbox MMO what allow outlaw status. Archeage is the first that comes to mind.

Edit:(I posted this in the Let's Argue: PvP thread, but it was drowned by the deluge of posts in the ongoing argument of badges in PvP zones, so I'm reposting it here in a different thread)

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I think let everyone attack

I think let everyone attack everyone else EXCEPT the people you are teamed up with. If you join a team, you're agreeing to band together for mutual protection.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 39 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
While the idea Huck has is

While the idea Huck has is nice, it isn't how the alignment system works. Hero, Villain, etc are labels, descriptive in nature. The tri-axis alignment is the alignment system, based in choices made in key moments. How the world npcs react to you is based on your reputation.

Now keep making certain choices may drive your alignment in a particualr direction, and that choice may also have an affect on certain faction reps, even over time. But they are two separate systems.

Could we use the Violent / Nonviolent axis as a gate for triggering combat? Probably. But it isn't what the system
Is meant to imppart. Particualrly for pvp where initiation of combat can be a great advantage and merely reacting to combat does not necessarily itself carry offset that advantage. Moreso, the sytem takes away player agency.

He player should get to decide when to initiate combat, when to react to it, and reason for themselves the "whys" for how those actions are justified byntheir character alignment.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

While the idea Huck has is nice, it isn't how the alignment system works. Hero, Villain, etc are labels, descriptive in nature. The tri-axis alignment is the alignment system, based in choices made in key moments. How the world npcs react to you is based on your reputation.
Now keep making certain choices may drive your alignment in a particualr direction, and that choice may also have an affect on certain faction reps, even over time. But they are two separate systems.

I specifically avoided using the word alignment for that very reason. But the labels Hero and Villain are certainly applicable regardless of alignment on the three-axis scale.

Tannim222 wrote:

Could we use the Violent / Nonviolent axis as a gate for triggering combat? Probably. But it isn't what the system
Is meant to imppart. Particualrly for pvp where initiation of combat can be a great advantage and merely reacting to combat does not necessarily itself carry offset that advantage. Moreso, the sytem takes away player agency.
He player should get to decide when to initiate combat, when to react to it, and reason for themselves the "whys" for how those actions are justified byntheir character alignment.

I don't understand when you say it takes away player agency.

If one player attacks another player in the middle of a neighborhood with no provocation, how would you expect the world to react except with condemnation?

If two players are in the same neighborhood and want to attack each other, nothing is stopping them, but if the attacking player doesn't want to be labelled as an outlaw, he should either wait for the other player to commit a crime, aid in the commission of a crime, or be of such vile reputation that he has an attack-on-sight warrant out for him. If a player considers him or herself a heroic character, and doesn't mind being labelled an outlaw for attacking first, then I suppose the label of vigilante fits perfectly.

Either way, this gives the players all the agency they could ask for, and more. It gives them moral immersion!

Save the three axis alignment system for NPC interactions. Players just need to know whether it is safe to attack someone else or not.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 39 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
While the idea Huck has is nice, it isn't how the alignment system works. Hero, Villain, etc are labels, descriptive in nature. The tri-axis alignment is the alignment system, based in choices made in key moments. How the world npcs react to you is based on your reputation.
Now keep making certain choices may drive your alignment in a particualr direction, and that choice may also have an affect on certain faction reps, even over time. But they are two separate systems.
I specifically avoided using the word alignment for that very reason. But the labels Hero and Villain are certainly applicable regardless of alignment on the three-axis scale.
Tannim222 wrote:
Could we use the Violent / Nonviolent axis as a gate for triggering combat? Probably. But it isn't what the system
Is meant to imppart. Particualrly for pvp where initiation of combat can be a great advantage and merely reacting to combat does not necessarily itself carry offset that advantage. Moreso, the sytem takes away player agency.
He player should get to decide when to initiate combat, when to react to it, and reason for themselves the "whys" for how those actions are justified byntheir character alignment.
I don't understand when you say it takes away player agency.
If one player attacks another player in the middle of a neighborhood with no provocation, how would you expect the world to react except with condemnation?
If two players are in the same neighborhood and want to attack each other, nothing is stopping them, but if the attacking player doesn't want to be labelled as an outlaw, he should either wait for the other player to commit a crime, aid in the commission of a crime, or be of such vile reputation that he has an attack-on-sight warrant out for him. If a player considers him or herself a heroic character, and doesn't mind being labelled an outlaw for attacking first, then I suppose the label of vigilante fits perfectly.
Either way, this gives the players all the agency they could ask for, and more. It gives them moral immersion!
Save the three axis alignment system for NPC interactions. Players just need to know whether it is safe to attack someone else or not.

Enforced rules which dictate when a player can take an action - such as "must wait for a crime" takes agency away.

There are a ton of examples in comics and movies where the "good guyd" end up fighting one another.

You used a rigid dichotomy of hero and villain and then included as a secondary possibiltiy of vigilante - these are very specific lables used by players in he tri-axis alignment system.

The entire point behind the tri-axis alignment is that no hero, villain, etc are necessarily the same.

You say a hero must wait for a crime - then the agency is upon you, the player (if you'remplaying that way" is to wait and watch what another player is doing.

Another player could be playing a "hero" and decide to not wait for a specific crime - perhaps they are territorial and don't care who it is or why they are there - but they fiercely protect and maintain control of an are.

Or maybe a player in a pvp zone just wants to pvp and there is no other "reason". The alignment system doesn't restrict them.

Forcing alignment shifts based on pvp actions is not what the alignment system is for.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Enforced rules which dictate when a player can take an action - such as "must wait for a crime" takes agency away.
There are a ton of examples in comics and movies where the "good guy[s]" end up fighting one another.
You used a rigid dichotomy of hero and villain and then included as a secondary possibiltiy of vigilante - these are very specific lables used by players in he tri-axis alignment system.
The entire point behind the tri-axis alignment is that no hero, villain, etc are necessarily the same.

I think you've just given something away that has not been mentioned before.

You've just stated that the labels HERO, VILLAIN and VIGILANTE are specific labels of coordinates in the tri-axis alignment system.

I was under the impression that those labels were independent of the tri-axis alignment system. It had been alluded to at one point that players would have the option of labelling themselves as hero or villain regardless of tri-axis alignment. Now it appears as if there will be some combination of alignment coordinates that will do that? This is breaking news.

My premise was on allowing player to be able to identify if another player is on their side or not. Basically the sides are: Law abiding citizen and non-law abiding citizen. The whole three-axis alignment just seems to get in the way when we are talking about PvP. But if the three axis alignment system will already be establishing sides for us, then we can ignore just about my entire suggestion.

Tannim222 wrote:

You say a hero must wait for a crime - then the agency is upon you, the player (if you're [playing] that way) is to wait and watch what another player is doing.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. If a hero doesn't want to be labelled as a vigilante bushwhacker, then that's the heroic thing to do. That's the handicap that every hero ever is burdened with. The villains always have the initiative and freedom to act, while heroes have to work with the law. But also realize that I gave heroes an out. Because once a player crosses a threshold on the villain scale, anyone can attack them with the full weight of righteous justice on their side without losing their hero label.

Tannim222 wrote:

Another player could be playing a "hero" and decide to not wait for a specific crime - perhaps they are territorial and don't care who it is or why they are there - but they fiercely protect and maintain control of an [area].

that sure sounds like a vigilante to me.

Tannim222 wrote:

Or maybe a player in a pvp zone just wants to pvp and there is no other "reason". The alignment system doesn't restrict them.
Forcing alignment shifts based on pvp actions is not what the alignment system is for.

By the way, as a PvP enthusiast, I strongly oppose your vision for how PvP will work. In a game the very raison d'être of which is to depict heroic vs. villainous behavoir, to disregard the ramifications of behavior upon alignment is to ignore the very reason people play heroes or villains. If people want to fight an ally, they can duel. If people want to fight any comer they can do so in an arena. But if a player wants to fight another player in Titan City, there should be ramifications to their respective status as heroes or a villains. If you don't agree, then I predict the game will fall far short of it's potential.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
What is more interesting to

What is more interesting to me, leaving the alignment stuff aside, is the nature of the content one plays in the PVP server/shard/instance/phase or whatever it is as compared to the PVE. In old CoX PVE, most of the time you did a lot of missions, TFs, etc which were "indoors" in the sense that they took place on a mission map that only you and your party had access to. Added to that, there were OCCASIONAL missions etc where you had to go outside to get your 20 Tsoo or whatever out in public with the rest of the players. Plus there were occasional large outdoor events like the Rikti Invasions to deal with. Ok, so in old CoX, the PVP maps were designed and built around the idea that most of the action would take place in the outdoor areas. There were a lot of objectives that were outdoors, like the "rescue the scientist to get the launch code" thing in Warburg, the "destroy the turrets to get the shivans" thing in Bloody Bay, etc. The whole PVP game was designed around getting the players outdoors and moving around where they would presumably fight each other a lot, which is like the opposite of what the PVE zones did to you.

So in a game where you're using the same map for the PVP instances as you are for the PVE instances, does this mean the PVP instances will have a lot more outdoor missions, content, etc to do? Because I think they probably should. I mean, I don't think just having the same door mission stuff happening in the PVP instance is a good idea. But then does that mean we have those "PVP-inducing" missions available and we just aren't using them in the PVE shard? If so, why? Are the PVP missions stuff like "go defeat 10 other players?"

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

RottenLuck
RottenLuck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 50 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 20:32
I would like a Challange

I would like a Challange system. But one that's a bit more interesting.

Player H (hero)
Player V (Villain)

Player V enters the challenge system menu and chooses Bank Heist. This Player H enters the system and sees the Heist challenge open and enters. The challenge in this is the Villain is robbing a bank and the Hero tries to stop Him/Her. The villain has gets to the getaway location or takes down the hero.

Other scenarios could play out including Hero raids Villain base, or Hero Calls out Villain.

In this way, the players choose to PVP, Chooses the map, and the goals. It also sets up events you might see in comics.

--------------------------------------------------------
Personal rules of good roleplay
1.) Nothing goes as planned.
2.) If it goes as planned it's not good RP

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 39 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Quote:
Quote:

they can duel. If people want to fight any comer they can do so in an arena. But if a player wants to fight another player in Titan City, there should be ramifications to their respective status as heroes or a villains. If you don't agree, then I predict the game will fall far short of it's potential.

Alignment has nothing to do with status. How variois factions percieve you "the world" is based on your reputation.

Your perception of someone protecting an area may be a vigilante, that player's perception of their character may be labled hero. How the various factions react to him is based on his repuation with them. Now these systems are orthogonal with each other.

However, between players - alignments are not necessarily "player-based-factions" restricting one to one area and another to another area - their faction reps will eventually sortmoit where they can walk freely among npcs ans where they can't.

In a pvp phase of the city - the same will happen and with the added mix of players choosing whethet or not to attack one another.
Plenty of games habe had succesful open-ended pvp.

The pvp phase is open ended to allow players to choose whether or not to engage in combat with another player.

Dueling is reserved for 1v1 encounters between players in a pve phase.

Arenas don't exist like in CoH. Arenas will exist for other forms of non-combat pvp.

In order for there to be ramifications to a player character's "status" one of two things need to occur:

1. Alignment labels are used as player-based factions (which is not how they are used at this time) and this would only affect how players "perceive" one another nad have no bearing on their faction-reps.

2. Players attacking other players would end up affecting their faction repuation. This could lead to way to easily manipulate the faction-rep system, big down the ease of pvp (dev-side we would wither have to make each faction-rep showable to other players in some manner). This is not ideal by any means.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Impulse King
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 32 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 18:55
Glad to be hearing more about

Glad to be hearing more about the PvP phase! My question is for PvE missions will PvP phased players be able to team up with PvE phased players?

And since we have mentioned faction rep, will joining a team have an effect on faction rep? Either temporary or longer lasting? And what if the mission itself affect faction rep?

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
GW2 has a way to do this.

GW2 has a way to do this. You can advertise your group (squad, whatever) and people can just click on it to join in the tab they have for that. Then, if you're on a different phase of the map than someone else, you can right-click on their name icon on the team list and select "Join in (map name)" to hop to their instance, with a loading screen.

This leads to people forming teams just to "taxi" more players into a given instance of the map to do big events, which fights against the games inherent tendency to spread players out across maps to make prevent lag.

Also, they don't have a way to just hop onto a specific instance of the map you're on by choice. If you use public teleportation to go to a map, the game will place you on an instance of the map it wants to place you on, and you'll likely end up on one of the more empty instances of that map as it tries to spread people out. Then you have to look for a team that's doing events to taxi you to their instance. And maps fill up sometimes, which prevents the hop map function from working.

That said, my experience in GW2 is limited to PVE. PVP is an entirely different thing which I never tried in that game (because nothing's forcing me to).

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Arenas don't exist like in CoH. Arenas will exist for other forms of non-combat pvp.

AaaawwwwwwWWWWW HHHHHEEEELLLLLLLLLL YYYEEEAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!! RAP BATTLES CONFIRMED!

SHOW US WHAT YOU GOT

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Hero, Villain, etc are labels, descriptive in nature....Alignment has nothing to do with status. How [various] factions percieve you "the world" is based on your reputation.

Okay, so the labels hero, villain and vigilante, and I assume scoundrel, are NOT determined by the alignment axes. I guess I misunderstood your post #5

But that's PERFECT, because that means we can use them for PvP again like I had originally put forward in the OP..

It was never my intention to have this status affect alignment or faction reputation, so please stop trying to make that connection.

Tannim222 wrote:

Your perception of someone protecting an area may be a vigilante, that player's perception of their character may be labled hero. How the various factions react to him is based on his repuation with them. Now these systems are orthogonal with each other.

Everyone is always the hero of their own story, even villians. For example, Mr. Freeze was just trying to get some diamonds to power his cold technology with the ultimate goal of curing his wife. Magneto was just trying to protect mutants from the vicious prejudices of normal humans. And King Kong was just lost and confused.
Moral relativism is not how you determine hero status. You need something objective and constant. No. A hero, like Superman, Spiderman, the Flash and the Fantastik Four are what the word Hero is supposed to stand for, and what it has stood for throughout the history of the genre. There is a reason Batman has a no-kill policy. Where have we gone astray that we don't even recognize classic heroes any more?

What you are calling heroic is not the same thing. The term vigilante is reserved for those who do legally questionable things for heroic reasons.

Tannim222 wrote:

However, between players - alignments are not necessarily "player-based-factions" restricting one to one area and another to another area - their faction reps will eventually [sort out] where they can walk freely among npcs [and] where they can't. In a pvp phase of the city - the same will happen and with the added mix of players choosing whethe[r] or not to attack one another.

again... I never said it should. You are making leaps of logic I never intended.

Tannim222 wrote:

Plenty of games ha[v]e had succesful open-ended pvp. The pvp phase is open ended to allow players to choose whether or not to engage in combat with another player.

I despise your idea of an open world free-for-all in which anyone can attack anyone without any repurcussions. In my opinion, that flies in the face of what this game is at its core. I'm not saying players should not be able to attack each other at any time in the PvP phase of the game, but I am saying that doing so should label them for PvP content purposes. And the labeling should be consistent with the actions witnessed.

Being a hero means something, and so does Villain, Vigilante and Scoundrel. A battle royale in downtown Titan City between thirty players to see who's the last man standing sounds great if we were a barbarian tribe vying for leadership, but not so much in a 21st century city when half the playerbase calls themselves heroes.

Tannim222 wrote:

Arenas don't exist like in CoH. Arenas will exist for other forms of non-combat pvp.

It's too bad you won't have arenas, because there really should be some place where anyone can fight anyone without repurcussions. I know this sounds like a contradiction to my previous statement, but I can't deny how awesome it sounds to be able to have an open world battle royale with 30 participants. (of course, with it being open world, there will always be a crowd of hyenas on the fringes stealing kills from those who took all the risk)
But if you're not going to have arenas, there should at least be one section of town that serves the same purpose as one where status as a hero or villain is ignored and everyone is free game.

Tannim222 wrote:

In order for there to be ramifications to a player character's "status" one of two things need to occur:
1. Alignment labels are used as player-based factions (which is not how they are used at this time) and this would only affect how players "perceive" one another [and] have no bearing on their faction-reps.
2. Players attacking other players would end up affecting their faction repuation. This could lead to way to easily manipulate the faction-rep system, big down the ease of pvp (dev-side we would wither have to make each faction-rep showable to other players in some manner). This is not ideal by any means.

I guess you either didn't read my post well enough or I just wasn't very clear.

Let me try again: The repercussion I discussed is a temporary label the player gets when they engage in any PvE or PvP in the PvP phase, and only in the PvP phase, of the game. I used the terms "Neutral", "Villain" and "Hero" but we could substitute any other label if you prefer. and for as long as a player has that label on him or herself, anyone who attacks that player gets the opposing label. Then, after the battle is over, a timer starts the cooldown back towards "neutral". That's all I was proposing.

I also added the threshold infamy score idea that would apply a permanent label to villains allowing heroes to ambush notorious villains without suffering the repercussions of committing an unprovoked assault. Remember this is a PvP label only. But also remember that open world PvE actions in the PvP phase would also affect this PvP label, as I discussed in my OP.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 39 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Quote:Let me try again: The

Quote:
Let me try again: The repercussion I discussed is a temporary label the player gets when they engage in any PvE or PvP in the PvP phase, and only in the PvP phase, of the game. I used the terms "Neutral", "Villain" and "Hero" but we could substitute any other label if you prefer. and for as long as a player has that label on him or herself, anyone who attacks that player gets the opposing label. Then, after the battle is over, a timer starts the cooldown back towards "neutral". That's all I was proposing.

I also added the threshold infamy score idea that would apply a permanent label to villains allowing heroes to ambush notorious villains without suffering the repercussions of committing an unprovoked assault. Remember this is a PvP label only. But also remember that open world PvE actions in the PvP phase would also affect this PvP label, as I discussed in my OP./quote]

My problem lies with you used very specific temrs - hero (and so on) and want those labels to enforce particular actions on the player (such as only cillains strike first) - meaning that the labels must impart some function of how the game operates upon the player by teacking actions against other players.

Now, that doesn't mean there are no repercussions in pvp or that there is a total fee-for all. Level ganking shouldn't happen either.

We can use our level-lens system to enforce level-brackets of engagements (narrowing performance gaps).

We also plan for a robust Challange and Achievements sytem. There is no reason it can't include pvp where more pvp wins provides badges and nororiety and losses makes you start the achievement track over.
Going after low norotiety players doesn't yield much in the way of earning your achievement goals, where going after similar and higher nororiety players earns more.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

My problem lies with you used very specific [terms] - hero (and so on) and want those labels to enforce particular actions on the player (such as only [v]illains strike first) - meaning that the labels must impart some function of how the game operates upon the player by [taking] actions against other players.

I understand what you are saying. But I really think you are looking at it backwards. In my opinion, players actually WANT there to be moral guidelines like what I propose. They want their status as a law-abiding do-gooder or notorious evil-doer to have meaning. Don't you see? Your system doesn't give players meaning, or structure. Players want that. A consistent moral code upon which they know they will be judged is very much a part of the superhero genre.

This game is not Conan Exiles, it is not Eve or Mortal Online. It is a superhero game. Without a consistent, objective, moral code upon which players choose their characters' actions, what do you have?

So if you fail to see that, we will have to repsectfully agree to disagree. I just hope someone on the game design team sees the difference.

*****************************************************
**********************>>BREAK<<*********************
*****************************************************
Now on to some of the other things you said that should be acknowledged:

Tannim222 wrote:

Now, that doesn't mean there are no repercussions in pvp or that there is a total fee-for all. Level ganking shouldn't happen either.
We can use our level-lens system to enforce level-brackets of engagements (narrowing performance gaps).
We also plan for a robust Chall[e]nge and Achievements sytem. There is no reason it can't include pvp where more pvp wins provides badges and no[t]oriety and losses makes you start the achievement track over.
Going after low no[tor]iety players doesn't yield much in the way of earning your achievement goals, where going after similar and higher no[t]oriety players earns more.

I think these are worthy rules to enable as fair a PvP sytem as possible.

One thing I think should be addressed is the ganker who likes to make life difficult for other players regardless of his diminished returns. We saw this in CoH when high ranked players camped on the badges that PvE players were trying to get at. Those guys just wanted to kill other players, taking some sort of perverse joy in making others' lives miserable. So in your set of rules you mentioned, what would you think about adding some sort of negative notoriety penalty for attacking someone below a character's level-lens? ...on second thought, that might backfire as a way for players to intentionally reduce their notoriety (depending on whether the rewards for high notoriety are worth having a price on your head). But there should be some penalty to discourage bad player behavior, not just diminished rewards.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Scipio
Scipio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 21 hours ago
Joined: 10/30/2013 - 18:28
We could always use the 9

We could always use the 9 label alignment grid as laid out by the great Gygax, it would provide more depth and give people more flexibility with who they want to ally with and go against

Col. Kernel wrote:

enjoy your niche. Don't be a whore.

20041004-20120910

Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 39 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Quote:
Quote:

One thing I think should be addressed is the ganker who likes to make life difficult for other players regardless of his diminished returns. We saw this in CoH when high ranked players camped on the badges that PvE players were trying to get at. Those guys just wanted to kill other players, taking some sort of perverse joy in making others' lives miserable. So in your set of rules you mentioned, what would you think about adding some sort of negative notoriety penalty for attacking someone below a character's level-lens? ...on second thought, that might backfire as a way for players to intentionally reduce their notoriety (depending on whether the rewards for high notoriety are worth having a price on your head). But there should be some penalty to discourage bad player behavior, not just diminished rewards.

The level-lens is a system we use to adjust for level differrrences between an attacker and target. We can make a separate version for pvp conflicts where past a certain range - you can't affect your target at all. Amd we can apply this at multiple level ranges as needed. Say, (just as an example) anything more than a 10 level difference you can't affect the target at all (evrn buffs).

Please note: limiting ganking is a side effect of this. It is more as a way to provide a fairer-fight in an open-world pvp setting. If the level lens were not adjusted, a level 50 could solo-wipe entire maps of low-level players with impunity until somone of a closer level came to try and stop them. Meanwhile, for some of those lower level players, they would be stuck with the frustration of being ganked.

Also note: there are players out there that wholly embrace this form of pvp where part of the struggle of surviving against high level player attacks and eventually leveling up is part of the fun.

You may not like it, but the pvp setting can be that wide open and people who enjoy it will still play.

As far as the desire of people for moral guidelines - please don't attempt to speak for everyone. We habe even on our dev team those who care
Nothing for lore, alignments, nor need reasons behind heir character's actions but enjoy the visual setting, the character customization, and the play style of the combat. And there are people who enjoy the customization and desire to rolemplay with the need to level up. Just ad well, there are people who enjoy everything in between.

You arw saying there needs a rigiidnsystem if rules that informs thenplayer why and when they csn act or be affected in somemmanner in pvp.

I'm saying, the game is designas as such that s player is free tondecide for themselves ttheir actions and determine the reasons for those actions.

Adding in ways to ensure fairer combats lowers the ease of entry for new players getting into pvp and provides opportunity for a larger pvp base.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 39 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Scipio wrote:
Scipio wrote:

We could always use the 9 label alignment grid as laid out by the great Gygax, it would provide more depth and give people more flexibility with who they want to ally with and go against

We already have our alignment system (see our update Beyond Good and Evil). It is a tri-axis alignment. It is descriptive of the character's actions aelected bu the player at key moments. Players don't see other player's alignments - it is information for the player about their character. As such, it isn't used to enforce a player-faction segregation system.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

The level-lens is a system we use to adjust for level [differences] between an attacker and target. We can make a separate version for pvp conflicts where past a certain range - you can't affect your target at all. A[n]d we can apply this at multiple level ranges as needed. Say, (just as an example) anything more than a 10 level difference you can't affect the target at all (ev[e]n buffs).
Please note: limiting ganking is a side effect of this. It is more as a way to provide a fairer-fight in an open-world pvp setting. If the level lens were not adjusted, a level 50 could solo-wipe entire maps of low-level players with impunity until som[e]one of a closer level came to try and stop them. Meanwhile, for some of those lower level players, they would be stuck with the frustration of being ganked.

I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly support this. It also prevents AoE from affecting other players who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time whether they were targeted or not.

Tannim222 wrote:

As far as the desire of people for moral guidelines - please don't attempt to speak for everyone. We ha[v]e even on our dev team those who care [n]othing for lore, alignments, nor need reasons behind heir character's actions but enjoy the visual setting, the character customization, and the play style of the combat. And there are people who enjoy the customization and desire to [roleplay] with the need to level up. Just a[s] well, there are people who enjoy everything in between.
You ar[e] saying there needs a [rigid] system [o]f rules that informs the[ ]player why and when they c[a]n act or be affected in some[ ]manner in pvp.
I'm saying, the game is design[ed] as such that [a] player is free to[ ]decide for themselves [their] actions and determine the reasons for those actions.

No one is proposing to take away players' free will. In fact, knowledge of the consequences of one's actions is the very definition of free will. You are proposing a city in which any player can attack any other player at any time without fear of judgement or consequences. So every player, out of fear of being ganked first will actually become a ganker to avoid being ambushed first by someone else. That is elemental human nature. It will drive people away from PvP. To think that players will check their own behavior based upon their own personal code of ethics is delusional if there is no game mechanic to back it up. The least common denominator will preside. In fact, the very mechanics you described about notoriety will further enforce this behavior. It will be an unkind place where groups of two or three will rule by force and fear and drive everyone else away.

Why do you think that other games who have open world PvP have outlaw systems in place?

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 39 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Quote:
Quote:

No one is proposing to take away players' free will. In fact, knowledge of the consequences of one's actions is the very definition of free will. You are proposing a city in which any player can attack any other player at any time without fear of judgement or consequences. So every player, out of fear of being ganked first will actually become a ganker to avoid being ambushed first by someone else. That is elemental human nature. It will drive people away from PvP. To think that players will check their own behavior based upon their own personal code of ethics is delusional if there is no game mechanic to back it up. The least common denominator will preside. In fact, the very mechanics you described about notoriety will further enforce this behavior. It will be an unkind place where groups of two or three will rule by force and fear and drive everyone else away.

Why do you think that other games who have open world PvP have outlaw systems in place?

I'm afraid either we misunderstand one another or I'm failing at the xplaoning properly.

Most successful open world pvp systems are those with fewer "rules"' of interactions - this leads to emergent pvp - and this is where you'll tend to find tbe most lasting stories about pvp from players - ones where they had agency.

With a level-lens leading to fairer fights, high-level ganking lower levels will be eliminated.

The concern of a few pvpers driving others away is actually what the notoriety sytem is for - if you keep defeating other players over and over - especially those who haven't had as much success as yourself, you won't gain much if any norotiety - leading to not earning the next badge, or possibly other rewards (for example being able to earn xp or other rewards for pvp upon completing a challenge).

Your ganking literally reduces what your character can get to earn. And if younhave higher norotiety than others - your a juicy target because someone of lower notoriety defeating you earns more toward their achievement someone of similar notoriety earns more towards their achievement. It is like a version if "pvp xp".

Fighting a "grey con" (somone of lower notoriety but in the same level-bracket as you) gets you next to nothing. Defeating a "red con" though, earns more (but it is a more difficult challenge). Your "meat and potatoes" will be those nearer to your own noriety.

And we could expand the types of achievements, a First Striken challenge - earning toward badges on being a person who attacks first.

A Survor's challenge - winning combat after being attacked first.

Elimination Participation - giving someone buffs (accuracy, damage, recharge) to helping win a fight. Or using debuffs (damage resistance, etc) to help win a fight. (And these are some that are planned in pve as is).

Assistance Support (healing and buffing others to survive).

There are plenty more.

These can all encourage active play in pvp in different ways without enforcing rigid rule strucutre while still providing guide-rails that lead to emergent pvp.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Cinnder
Cinnder's picture
Offline
Last seen: 53 min 41 sec ago
Gunterkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/26/2013 - 16:24
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

...knowledge of the consequences of one's actions is the very definition of free will.

That's a fascinating interpretation of the term I had never heard before. Can you point to a dictionary as evidence of this?

Spurn all ye kindle.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
The point made above that

The point made above that "players want an alignment system" is SO NOT TRUE of the all the hardcore PVPers I know. They, and I'm thinking of specific RL friends of mine whom I know well, only care about building their toon to the uber level of powerfulness, OP if possible, and wreaking havoc with said toon. They try to dig into the rules as written and "break" anything that's not 100% abuse proof in order to achieve the best possible invulnerable kill engine, then turn it loose on anything that they come across, giggling at the pathetic attempts of others to resist them. I'm thinking of specific friends of mine and how they've played MUDs etc in the past when I type this. These are people who don't read flavor text on magic cards, don't write a description of their DnD character other than "total badass", name their toon "I_KEEL_U" instead of a real name, etc. They DO NOT CARE about alignment if it doesn't make them stronger or weaker, and they will only pay any attention to it insofar as it has an effect on what they can actually DO in the game. These people are not role playing a character, joining a side, or telling a story, they're trying to win, hard, and dominate the competition. And troll people.

That's just my 0.02$

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Cinnder wrote:
Cinnder wrote:

Huckleberry wrote:
...knowledge of the consequences of one's actions is the very definition of free will.
That's a fascinating interpretation of the term I had never heard before. Can you point to a dictionary as evidence of this?

This is so common an argument in philosophy that a citation is not necessary. For without knowledge of the consequences of one's actions, one is lost. Just do an internet search and you will find all the citations you need.

But you asked a question and rather than just saying "answer it yourself" I will summarize it here:
If I don't know the results of my choices, than any choice will do; and if any choice will do, then what difference does the choice make? And if my choices make no difference did I really exercise free will or am I just fooling myself into thinking I have. It gets pretty deep.

It comes up a lot in discussions of fate and destiny and theology as well.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

The point made above that "players want an alignment system" is SO NOT TRUE of the all the hardcore PVPers I know. They, and I'm thinking of specific RL friends of mine whom I know well, only care about building their toon to the uber level of powerfulness, OP if possible, and wreaking havoc with said toon. They try to dig into the rules as written and "break" anything that's not 100% abuse proof in order to achieve the best possible invulnerable kill engine, then turn it loose on anything that they come across, giggling at the pathetic attempts of others to resist them. I'm thinking of specific friends of mine and how they've played MUDs etc in the past when I type this. These are people who don't read flavor text on magic cards, don't write a description of their DnD character other than "total badass", name their toon "I_KEEL_U" instead of a real name, etc. They DO NOT CARE about alignment if it doesn't make them stronger or weaker, and they will only pay any attention to it insofar as it has an effect on what they can actually DO in the game. These people are not role playing a character, joining a side, or telling a story, they're trying to win, hard, and dominate the competition. And troll people.
That's just my 0.02$

That is a valid point, but not unexpected.

Those players will be the ones going red on everyone. Pretty simple. I had already taken those players into account. No one is stopping them from participating. And they fit perfectly well within the proposed PvP system set forth in the OP. They will undoubtedly end up with a permanent outlaw label allowing anyone to freely attack them. In other words it will treat them exactly they way they want to be treated and the game will play as a free-for-all for them just like how Tannin wants it to be for everyone.

But like I said, this game is not Conan Exiles or Eve. This is a superhero game, and there will be players who will want to stop crime in the PvP phase and run missions in the PvP phase and be heroes in the PvP phase. We need to enable them and provide positive reinforcement and my proposal does that. Trust me, there will be enough perma-red players out there to give even the most goody-two-shoes hero character a target rich environment.

This game is the ONE CHANCE to play a hero in a PvP environment, I don't know why MWM doesn't realize their position in the industry and in game history and run with it.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Cinnder
Cinnder's picture
Offline
Last seen: 53 min 41 sec ago
Gunterkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/26/2013 - 16:24
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
Cinnder wrote:

That's a fascinating interpretation of the term I had never heard before. Can you point to a dictionary as evidence of this?

This is so common an argument in philosophy that a citation is not necessary. For without knowledge of the consequences of one's actions, one is lost. Just do an internet search and you will find all the citations you need.
But you asked a question and rather than just saying "answer it yourself" I will summarize it here:
If I don't know the results of my choices, than any choice will do; and if any choice will do, then what difference does the choice make? And if my choices make no difference did I really exercise free will or am I just fooling myself into thinking I have. It gets pretty deep.
It comes up a lot in discussions of fate and destiny and theology as well.

Ah, so you meant to say a commonly-discussed philosophical aspect of the word instead of definition, since it's clearly not the latter.

Spurn all ye kindle.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 39 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Huck,

Huck,
I respectfully disagree. You're stil enforcing a dichotmy and referencing specific labels which adhere to a strict "rule of law" of what a hero is and isn't.

Which gors directly against the rest of the alignment system which leabes it up to the player to determine their reasons for taking action of any sort.

Many pvpers who enjoy open world pvp like systems which encourage emergent pvp.

We want to encourage ergent behavior in players. It is inherent in many of our design decisions.

You say a hero "must wait fon a crime" to occur. And for some that's fine. Others view heroes with more proactive roles.

The alignment system leaves much up to player interpretation for their character - the choices that affect alignment afford themplayer the options to enforce their chosen alignment axis - but the reasons for that is up to the payer.

The same gors for pvp. Players can decide for themselves when, where, and why to engage. Their "morals" are up to their own personal interpretation.

The Challenges and Achievements with PvP Notoriety encourages playing up against people who are similar or greater standing in order to progress their own standing and earn rewards.

Attacking those at lower standing is less rewarding. on the flipside of that coin, those in higher notoriety make a target of themselves to those of lower notoriety.

Since being defeated lowers your notoriety, which means you have to "climb thst latter" again toward reaching your reward levels via achievements.

Now, specific pvp modes can provide "reasons" for action. A timed-capture the flag in the form of a heist can let players choose which "side they are on". And can use level brackets as well as notoriety to provide match making if necessary (well the level brackets should be used certainly).

In general though, open pvp mmos aren't as successful when they enforce behavior. Encourage certain behaviors, provide rails, leave intent of action open to the player.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Now, specific pvp modes can provide "reasons" for action. A timed-capture the flag in the form of a heist can let players choose which "side they are on".

are you saying there will be specific PvP events like this?

Quote:

In general though, open pvp mmos aren't as successful when they enforce behavior. Encourage certain behaviors, provide rails, leave intent of action open to the player.

There aren't enough data points to be able to make a statement like this.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 39 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
Now, specific pvp modes can provide "reasons" for action. A timed-capture the flag in the form of a heist can let players choose which "side they are on".
are you saying there will be specific PvP events like this?

Not at launch, but it is my hope to include this and other types of pvp types.

Providing level brackets and notoriety is the foundation. Things get realminteresting when you look at what happens if there is a pve event like an invasion and players choose to attack other players involved in the event.

Huckleberry wrote:

Quote:
In general though, open pvp mmos aren't as successful when they enforce behavior. Encourage certain behaviors, provide rails, leave intent of action open to the player.
There aren't enough data points to be able to make a statement like this.

There are multiple examples from 30 years of MMO design from which to obtain data. There isna grave yard of failed pvp centric mmos alone to study from.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

In general though, open pvp mmos aren't as successful when they enforce behavior. Encourage certain behaviors, provide rails, leave intent of action open to the player.

That's true, but it's equally true that left to their own devices players turn open PvP into lawless and toxic game environments.

I am baffled by this decision to just drop PvP into it's own shard/server/whatever. Without knowing more about how you plan to structure these servers all I can see in the future for those PvP servers is one of two outcomes. Either they will be mostly empty wastes of effort or they will be filled with the worst kind of PvP players that are out there.
It's like you guys forgot the lessons of PvP zones from CoH and now want to turn all PvP into those zones.

I mean I think I get some of the thinking behind this decision being influenced by the current popular trend of open world PvP games like 'Player Battlegrounds, Ark, H1Z1 and so on, but I don't seeing it being a successful way to interject PvP into this game.

The further decision to not have structured PvP arenas allow for controlled team based combat is probably the worst thing I have heard about this game so far.

Sorry if my view is negative, but everything about PvP servers sounds very bad.

If nothing else, you will probably be able to sell a fair number of server switch tokens as people leave those PvP servers.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 39 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
In general though, open pvp mmos aren't as successful when they enforce behavior. Encourage certain behaviors, provide rails, leave intent of action open to the player.
That's true, but it's equally true that left to their own devices players turn open PvP into lawless and toxic game environments.
I am baffled by this decision to just drop PvP into it's own shard/server/whatever. Without knowing more about how you plan to structure these servers all I can see in the future for those PvP servers is one of two outcomes. Either they will be mostly empty wastes of effort or they will be filled with the worst kind of PvP players that are out there.
It's like you guys forgot the lessons of PvP zones from CoH and now want to turn all PvP into those zones.
I mean I think I get some of the thinking behind this decision being influenced by the current popular trend of open world PvP games like 'Player Battlegrounds, Ark, H1Z1 and so on, but I don't seeing it being a successful way to interject PvP into this game.
The further decision to not have structured PvP arenas allow for controlled team based combat is probably the worst thing I have heard about this game so far.
Sorry if my view is negative, but everything about PvP servers sounds very bad.
If nothing else, you will probably be able to sell a fair number of server switch tokens as people leave those PvP servers.

PvP is its own phase of the entire city. You will be free to enter or leave the phase whenerver you want. It is entirely optional.

There will be structure provided by level-based brackets and pvp notoriety. The base game isn't designed around "player factions" do neothet will the pvp phase.

Structured pvp will come in the form of varioud pvp events in their own instance. It just isn't a specific "arena".


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

There are multiple examples from 30 years of MMO design from which to obtain data. There isna grave yard of failed pvp centric mmos alone to study from.

Then let's take a look at the successful ones.
Of all the successful PvP in MMO, one, and only one, is open world chaotic like you describe.
That is Eve online and it is a sandbox in which player-made factions and a real-world economy rule. Albion is trying to be like Eve. We'll see if they are successful or not; but like Eve, Albion is a sandbox with everything from resource gathering to tradeskill levelling to gear progression. City of Titans is not going to be anything like that.

All other successful PvP MMOs have either forced players into opposing factions(thus limiting who they can and can not attack), or have established an outlaw system(providing consequences for attacking anyone), or both. Even Black Desert online penalizes players for attacking other players.

Can you name any other PvP centric MMO besides Eve that is free-for-all and also successful?

Like I said. There are not enough data points in the past 30 years for you to make a statement that PvP is less successful when actions have consequences.

Edit: When I say MMO, I am not referring to games like H1Z1, etc. which are just glorified arenas with a designated start and a declared winner. I am referring to MMORPG that have a significant PvE element to them.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 39 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Either you still

Either you still misunderstand the system or I'm not explaining it well.

This isn't completely open.
The Notoriety system encourages playing against those near or above your notoriety.

PvP wins provides a Win Streak Notoriety. If someone is running around with a high Win Streak Notoriety - they become a juicy target for ohers with lower notoriety. Losing makes you lose your Win Streak.

Each new "level"'of notoriety is an Achievement. In orser to gain your "xp", you want to engage against players of similar or higher notoriety than you. Defeating lower notoriety players won't help you earn your achivement but will rack up your Win Streak. Making you a target.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

PvP is its own phase of the entire city. You will be free to enter or leave the phase whenerver you want. It is entirely optional.
There will be structure provided by level-based brackets and pvp notoriety. The base game isn't designed around "player factions" do neothet will the pvp phase.

That's better, but its still just a bigger version of the failed PvP zones of CoH to me. Faction or no faction doesn't matter to me, its the type of PvP player that is attracted to the open world style of PvP.

Tannim222 wrote:

Structured pvp will come in the form of varioud pvp events in their own instance. It just isn't a specific "arena".

So instead of a localized area devoted to structured PvP, something that benefits player sponsored tournaments/leagues, you have spread it around the city.

I'm sorry Tannim but as it stands I do not see anything good in CoT's version of PvP. It's not a deal breaker, I will still play the PvE game and leave it to other games to get my PvP fix.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Either you still misunderstand the system or I'm not explaining it well.
This isn't completely open.
The Notoriety system encourages playing against those near or above your notoriety.
PvP wins provides a Win Streak Notoriety. If someone is running around with a high Win Streak Notoriety - they become a juicy target for ohers with lower notoriety. Losing makes you lose your Win Streak.
Each new "level"'of notoriety is an Achievement. In orser to gain your "xp", you want to engage against players of similar or higher notoriety than you. Defeating lower notoriety players won't help you earn your achivement but will rack up your Win Streak. Making you a target.

I understand you just fine and I already told you I liked those ideas. But they have nothing to do with the free-for-all everyone is out for herself design of the PvP system you are going with; and it is that free-for all design I am objecting to.

Granted, the system I put forward in my OP is also a free-for-all but since this is a game about playing superheroes, I injected consequence into the mix such that if you attack someone (including NPCs) without provocation, you are flagged in PvP as fair game for every other player. Otherwise you are flagged by default as a neutral, law-abiding citizen. That is the consequence I am referring to. I also thought that it would be a good idea to keep a tally so that when someone does this enough they will be perma-flagged.

Since the PvP phase is the same as the PvE phase, it makes sense that players will want to develop their characters in this phase running PvE with he added excitement of other players being a potential hazard. That, to me, sounds like a great way to play CoT! But if I have to worry about the person I just ran a mission with turning on me as soon as I walk out the door, then I probably won't be coming over to this phase.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 32 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

In my opinion, players actually WANT there to be moral guidelines like what I propose. They want their status as a law-abiding do-gooder or notorious evil-doer to have meaning. Don't you see? Your system doesn't give players meaning, or structure. Players want that. A consistent moral code upon which they know they will be judged is very much a part of the superhero genre.

YOU very obviously want that - but please don't try to speak for everyone else.

Quote:

This game is not Conan Exiles, it is not Eve or Mortal Online. It is a superhero game. Without a consistent, objective, moral code upon which players choose their characters' actions, what do you have?

We are basically going to have this in the PVE game - it fits there. If I go into PVP? I just want to jump in and bust some heads, either alone or with a team. How the alignment system will affect who we can team with or fight against, I am not clear on - but we don't need some kind of meta justification getting in the way of some good old BIF POW action.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Interdictor wrote:
Interdictor wrote:

YOU very obviously want that - but please don't try to speak for everyone else.

I didn't claim to speak for everyone, but you can not tell me I do not speak for some good portion. The portion that would be enticed by it. The portion that would only get such a system in a game about heroes. The portion that includes people like me.

And your response indicates you did not even look at the OP, or at least lost track of it after reading this thread so far.

Edit: Sorry that sounded so argumentative. I think I've gotten into an argumentative frame of mind and need to take a breather.. Of course I wasn't speaking for everyone. And you basically said the same thing Radiac said back up in post #22

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 39 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
This is, in part why we don't

This is, in part why we don't enforce upon the player what being "hero" or "outlaw" is to the player.

YOU determine what that means to you.

The game, in this particular example of pvp - does not stipulate to the player " attacking this player first means you are an outlaw" and conversely "you are a hero" if you are arracked without "provocation".

The player gets to determine for themselves any "morals" to theiir character's actions. And if a player does care about "reasons" to crack some heads, well, there is nothing to ignore.

What you will end up being converned over is advsncing your pvp standing and attacking others to improve it.
And if you attack others, whther they are near your standing or not, and are successful - you will make a target of yourself for it.

At least in the open world.
The pvp events can provide those more specific thematic schemes to provide the background "story" of the event - letting players pick a "side" if sorts.

Another possibility - and this is not a promise - is that we may be able to make player generated content flagged for pvp. Where players can make their own pvp maps, and have a range of rule sets for them.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
McNum
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 10 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 06:49
Does that count for PvE

Does that count for PvE teaming, too? Or is that still planned to be locked out by Hero and Villain labels?

Because seeing Robin murder Batman is more immersion breaking than seeing Lex Luthor team up with Superman to me.

Airhead
Airhead's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 5 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 23:38
I can't say I read this

I can't say I read this thread carefully. Perhaps Tannim is saying that players should be able to choose what they do. Huckleberry is saying that a person's reputation will depend on what they choose to do. There's no conflict in that.

If a hero makes a preemptive strike on on a well known villain that could be seen as heroic. If non-player police enter the fray responding to whatever pre-coded trigger they could be assumed to be on the side of good. A mind-controlling villain could leverage that, to a point - not impacting the battle, but perhaps impacting the hero/villain status rewards, if it's likely the deceit would be uncovered (eg. those police sober up and remember).

There ought to be consequences to one's reputation for villainous or heroic acts. Sure, those rules may not match the real world (eg. where fire and guns are lethal). Sure, there could be scenarios where there are no good guys, no bad guys, or teams are set arbitrarily. It would be great if those scenarios are inspired by story telling. Eg. Marvel's Civil War (at least when it's done well), where sides have to be taken but they're not cut and dried as heroic and villainous. Secrets that cannot be revealed that result in confusion. But ideally not just "lets go bash each other for fun".But if we define many-dimensional characters (or simply answer the key pop-up question when the battle begins) we may be placed on sides more randomly. Those who choose to change sides would gain appropriate reputation.

Of course I am far more into escapism than competitive gameplay, not the other extreme. Just one corner of the many spectra.

"The illusion which exalts us is dearer to us than ten thousand truths." - Pushkin
"One piece of flair is all I need." - Sister Silicon

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 39 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Just to be clear - there is a

Just to be clear - there is a form of bounty system throigh the Notoriety system. The higher your win streak - the more Notorious you are for that. The more Notorious you are in Win Streak - the more you are "worth" defeating for gaining your general PvP rank.

Part of that system encourages attacking others of similar overall Nortoriety (or pvp rank) in order to progress said rank.

I'll try to give a very basic example.

PK Player is the same "pvp rank" as most others in his level bracket. Let's say he is Rank 1. He fights and defeats other Rank 1 players.

PK Player gains 2 forms of Notoriety. His general PvP Notoriety, and Win Steak.

Pk Player now reached Rank 2. If he continues to attack Rank 1s, he won't progress his PvP Notoriety as much as before. But if he continues to win, his Win Streak Notoriety increases.

This makes him worth more than what a typical Rank 2 player may be worth (because he is defeating more players at Rabk 1 than he would need to progress if he were fighting other Rank 2s).

PL Player makes a target of himself to any othet player because his Win Streak modifies his Rank "worth" for defeating him.

Quote:

Since the PvP phase is the same as the PvE phase, it makes sense that players will want to develop their characters in this phase running PvE with he added excitement of other players being a potential hazard. That, to me, sounds like a great way to play CoT! But if I have to worry about the person I just ran a mission with turning on me as soon as I walk out the door, then I probably won't be coming over to this phase.

That is the risk of open pvp with environment based progression. This is nothing new. Entering into a random pick up group in PvP, fighting some nocs (or comlleting a quest / mission), you run the risk of pvp once the group disbands.

This is where social dynamics come into play. Being part of a Super Team prevents general pvp (unless you use the dual function, or enter in an event and choose opposing sides). And having a Super Team form a League (Super Teams that enter an "alliance" with he other) prevents general PvP outside those functions.

If you want to enter into the pvp phase, and still continue to pve without risk of your group turning on you after it disbands, make yourself a Super Team (yes you can be a Super Team of 1) and make alliances, or join with others either in your own ST or into someone else's ST. Then, group up those players.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

That is the risk of open pvp with environment based progression. This is nothing new. Entering into a random pick up group in PvP, fighting some nocs (or comlleting a quest / mission), you run the risk of pvp once the group disbands.
This is where social dynamics come into play. Being part of a Super Team prevents general pvp (unless you use the dual function, or enter in an event and choose opposing sides). And having a Super Team form a League (Super Teams that enter an "alliance" with he other) prevents general PvP outside those functions.
If you want to enter into the pvp phase, and still continue to pve without risk of your group turning on you after it disbands, make yourself a Super Team (yes you can be a Super Team of 1) and make alliances, or join with others either in your own ST or into someone else's ST. Then, group up those players.

No thanks.

I thought CoT would be different because it is a superhero game. If I want to play your Nietzchean version of PvP, I will do so in games that are designed for it, and in which it is consistent with the lore of the game, like in Eve or Albion (or Crowfall when it comes out)

I'm not saying I dislike that style of PvP. I just don't think it is appropriate for CoT and I think there is potential for CoT to be something special/unique.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
"No thanks."? Does that mean

"No thanks."? Does that mean you're refusing to play CoT now, or just the PvP part of it entirely because they didn't actually do YOUR personal idea (for clearly stated and basically-well-thought-out reasons given, agree with them or not) and now you're walking away?

I find it entertaining at this point that people still take the stance that is essentially an attempt to hold the game dev's hostage for the "ransom" that is their own playing of the game. The idea of "I refuse to play this game unless you take my idea and implement it" is something that I've heard SO many times on these forums from so many people that I know it's A) an empty threat, usually and B) a complete farce anyway, because it's still better to lose one would-be player than like the entire gamer playerbase in general.

They have to try to design this game for more than just one person. As Spock said, the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Radiac, it isn't a crime to

Radiac, it isn't a crime to dislike or even hate a feature this game is going to have. And despite nose in cheeks responses like this, it is possible for people to have a completely different view of what is best for the many without selfishly thinking of only the few.

Huck thinks that utilizing the comic book staple of good vs evil would separate and elevate the PvP that CoT offers. Maybe respecting his position, even if you don't agree with it, is a better choice than calling him out for some imaginary blackmail scheme.

Telling the devs that you have no interest, hate or find a feature a deal breaker is not blackmail. It's voicing your opinion, part of the reason these forums exist.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

"No thanks."? Does that mean you're refusing to play CoT now, or just the PvP part of it entirely because they didn't actually do YOUR personal idea (for clearly stated and basically-well-thought-out reasons given, agree with them or not) and now you're walking away?

While I appreciate you treating my opinions with such magnitude, there's no reason to be an alarmist. My "No Thanks" was in response to Tannim's suggestion to me on a course of action to follow.
To wit:

Quote:

If you want to enter into the pvp phase, and still continue to pve without risk of your group turning on you after it disbands, make yourself a Super Team (yes you can be a Super Team of 1) and make alliances, or join with others either in your own ST or into someone else's ST. Then, group up those players.

To think that my declaring an opinion would be tantamount to holding a developer hostage is giving me far more credit than I deserve. I am just one person. What kind of leverage do you think I think I have? Obviously you think my opinion has more leverage than I think it does. Besides. I think you also do the developers a disservice if you think they think one person's opinion matters that much!

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 50 min ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
I find it funny how scared

I find it funny how scared people are of dying that they wouldn't even want to try PVP. Have you never exited a mission only to find bad guys standing outside and getting slaughtered? I think this fear is more of a pride issue.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
I find it funny how people

I find it funny how people assume its a fear of dying that dissuades people from PvP. I don't like Sudoku even though I can do it. Why would I want to do something I don't enjoy?
Elitist opinions do nothing to further the conversation. I think your assumption is more of an arrogance and ignorance issue.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 hours 53 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

I find it funny how people assume its a fear of dying that dissuades people from PvP. I don't like Sudoku even though I can do it. Why would I want to do something I don't enjoy?
Elitist opinions do nothing to further the conversation. I think your assumption is more of an arrogance and ignorance issue.

Pretty much this.

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 50 min ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
Why else would someone worry

Why else would someone worry that as soon as they exited the mission the person they teamed with would turn on them? I think what you like to do Brainbot, is interpret everyone's comments in your own way and run with it.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 39 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Well everyone should feel

Well everyone should feel free to voice their opinion. Players will agree and disagree with many different aspects of design.

Heck there are aslects of design that I don't agree with. I must abide by them and work within them once a decision is made about the scope of design.

The decision was made to separate pve and pvp into different phases. Entering pvp flags you for pvp autimatically (hence the is a warning). Wanting to have the system dictate reasons for pvp in am effort to mske pvp support the tropes within the genre of comic book heroes isn't a bad desire,

Our pvp is more open ended because the alignment is left up to the player to decide for themselves the motivations behind their character and can interpret the actions of another player for themselves.

And players are free to dislike this aspect of pvp and choose not to. I understand where Huckleberry is coming from.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

Why else would someone worry that as soon as they exited the mission the person they teamed with would turn on them?

I suppose you could ask, rather than coming to an assumed conclusion.

Besides, I think a fear of your character losing a fight is a natural fear. Not only would there be some sort of game-induced penalty, but there is also the hassle associated with being diverted from your planned course of action, which nobody likes. And finally, there is the betrayal of it.

But besides the hassle and the death penalty, the real reason comes down to pride. I'll admit it. You make that sound like a bad thing. Why?
Pride is the primary motivator behind a vast majority of PvP actions, and game designers know this. Other players are, after all, the most dangerous game.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 50 min ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
From my experience on here,

From my experience on here, some people are more vicious than I ever experienced in PVP. But they try and paint this picture that PVP was a big bully and they are scarred from that experience, vowing to never enter a PVP zone. I am glad you admit that it is pride and not mask it like all the other people who just keep hating on PVP and pretty much insult people who enjoy it. I guess I just wanted to hear someone admit it. I understand that it could be related to a penalty, this should not happen, and I would hope this game is not so emotionally developed where getting attacked by the team you just played with, or doing the attacking would stray you from your course. Betrayal... well if someone really disbanded just to kill you, that says something about them. I don't see this happening a lot. It would have to be a real horrible person to do that. Although I could see myself doing it to a friend just to have some laughs.

MeSoSollyWan
MeSoSollyWan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 41 min 32 sec ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/18/2014 - 00:54
Tannim, to be clear (I am

Tannim, to be clear (I am trying to understand), as it stands, I would not be able to:

- "make a hero" or "be a hero through the alignment system" and then enter into the PVP Phase
- find a villain
- fight and kill said villain just for being a villain
?

I have so many good memories of going into Siren's Call, watching heroes help each other and the Longbow Troops, and conversely seeing Villains aid Arachnos, then fighting them just because we know that by them being villains they are already doing villainous things in their missions.

I get the whole, "Make your own decisions/path." deal but a lot can be said for actually stating that another player is doing something evil, and you are being heroic by trying to "arrest" (kill) them by defeating them (or the opposite!). That is very much how things typically work in the superhero worlds we've been shown.

The way you're describing it, IF I read correctly, is that it becomes an all-bets-are-off, every man for himself, Dragon Ball - World Martial Arts Tournament "WHO IS THE MOST POWERFUL??", possibly &!@K waving contest* scenario? Even after you exit a mission with a teammate? That heroic character can just fight and kill another heroic character.. just because?

Like, I get it. People just do things. But that's finalized? That is what open world PVP Phase CoT will be?

*I am well aware that most PVP boils down to this type of contest anyway. ;)

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
MeSoSollyWan wrote:
MeSoSollyWan wrote:

The way you're describing it, IF I read correctly, is that it becomes an all-bets-are-off, every man for himself, Dragon Ball - World Martial Arts Tournament "WHO IS THE MOST POWERFUL??", possibly &!@K waving contest* scenario? Even after you exit a mission with a teammate? That heroic character can just fight and kill another heroic character.. just because?

I think the idea is the the onus of motive is placed squarely on the players shoulders. You will still be able to seek out those engaging in villainy, the difference being you decide what is villainous and what is heroic and so does everyone else.

In practice this does not work though. It will eventually turn into exactly what you describe here.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 39 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
MeSoSollyWan wrote:
MeSoSollyWan wrote:

Tannim, to be clear (I am trying to understand), as it stands, I would not be able to:
- "make a hero" or "be a hero through the alignment system" and then enter into the PVP Phase
- find a villain
- fight and kill said villain just for being a villain
?
I have so many good memories of going into Siren's Call, watching heroes help each other and the Longbow Troops, and conversely seeing Villains aid Arachnos, then fighting them just because we know that by them being villains they are already doing villainous things in their missions.
I get the whole, "Make your own decisions/path." deal but a lot can be said for actually stating that another player is doing something evil, and you are being heroic by trying to "arrest" (kill) them by defeating them (or the opposite!). That is very much how things typically work in the superhero worlds we've been shown.
The way you're describing it, IF I read correctly, is that it becomes an all-bets-are-off, every man for himself, Dragon Ball - World Martial Arts Tournament "WHO IS THE MOST POWERFUL??", possibly &!@K waving contest* scenario? Even after you exit a mission with a teammate? That heroic character can just fight and kill another heroic character.. just because?
Like, I get it. People just do things. But that's finalized? That is what open world PVP Phase CoT will be?
*I am well aware that most PVP boils down to this type of contest anyway. ;)

Hero and Villain are labels a player uses for their character. It is descriptive in nature and does not drive game play.

The alignment system consists of 3 axis that are determined based on your characters actions over time at key decision making moments.

If you are in a team, you can't attack one another. If your are a Super Team or League you can't just attack one another.

The open world setting for pvp doen't pick and choose sides based on alignment. Eventually, I know we plan to include events or modes of pvp on instances maps where there will be opposing teams.

I oersonally hope to eventually include a form of pvevp using factions and control points. Which can provided "sides" to choose to support based on factions.

We also have some other pvp ideas that we haven't discussed.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

I think what you like to do Brainbot, is interpret everyone's comments in your own way and run with it.

Hah.
You habitually ascribe motive and reason to others actions then accuse me. Glass houses buddy.

It gets very tiresome to constantly have a myopic viewpoint from a close minded person thrown about as if it is fact. You continuously try to discredit any dislike of PvP as some kind of emotional deficiency like fear or pride and simply refuse to accept that someone might simply not enjoy PvP.

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 50 min ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Wolfgang8565 wrote:
I think what you like to do Brainbot, is interpret everyone's comments in your own way and run with it.
Hah.
You habitually ascribe motive and reason to others actions then accuse me. Glass houses buddy.
It gets very tiresome to constantly have a myopic viewpoint from a close minded person thrown about as if it is fact. You continuously try to discredit any dislike of PvP as some kind of emotional deficiency like fear or pride and simply refuse to accept that someone might simply not enjoy PvP.

You can use whatever words you want, point is, I was right. I maybe should not have assumed, but as you can see it was a correct assumption. And where are you when people are grouping all PVPers as cheaters, bullies, and basically jerks? You are silent then right?

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

I understand that it could be related to a penalty, this should not happen, and I would hope this game is not so emotionally developed where getting attacked by the team you just played with, or doing the attacking would stray you from your course. Betrayal... well if someone really disbanded just to kill you, that says something about them. I don't see this happening a lot. It would have to be a real horrible person to do that. Although I could see myself doing it to a friend just to have some laughs.

Yeah, I can understand that. And if it was a friend, I would probably laugh it off too, unless he or she ruined a big win streak I had going. (see Tannim's posts about win streaks)
I brought up the point about getting ambushed by a teammate because it appears the PvP system will actually be set up to reward such behavior. I was trying to make a point by citing an extreme, but probably not unlikely example.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

If you are in a team, you can't attack one another. If your are a Super Team or League you can't just attack one another.

Three things:

1. Is a super team what one would call a raid in other games? A team of teams?
2. League members can't attack one another? That's interesting. I suppose that will naturally and simultaneously add incentive to make leagues bigger and also to limit a league's size. Make the league bigger for security's sake, bit limit size so that there's still someone else to fight against. I like the competing incentives and the balance this could bring. But if dueling is only enabled in the PvE phase, would two league-mates have to switch over to the PvE phase to fight each other? I would hope you enable some way to allow people to fight each other regardless of league affiliation in the PvP phase.
3. I think it has been too long since I've said this: Thank you Tannim and all the MWM developers for engaging with us in this sometimes spirited back and forth. I think we as potential players take it for granted some times. But we really are blessed to have this access to you and have such an obvious testament of your commitment and enthusiasm for the game.

Potential Titans:
Trap Spider - the little spider rides a big robot
Thunderbird Priest - conduit of the Thunderbird spirit
Lovebot - programmed to love man, gives tough love to mankind
Schwarzchild - singularity-manipulating time traveller is lost

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

You can use whatever words you want, point is, I was right. I maybe should not have assumed, but as you can see it was a correct assumption. And where are you when people are grouping all PVPers as cheaters, bullies, and basically jerks? You are silent then right?

No you weren't right. One person does not equate the broad assumptions that you make. It's just further evidence that you lack the ability to see beyond the immediate.
Much like how you forget when I stood up for PvP'rs HERE, HERE and HERE. The last one you even made it a point to voice your agreement with HERE.

You can treat Huck's agreement with your assumptions as the final word and preach it's gospel but I am going to oppose that narrow view every time.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 39 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
If you are in a team, you can't attack one another. If your are a Super Team or League you can't just attack one another.

Three things:
1. Is a super team what one would call a raid in other games? A team of teams?
2. League members can't attack one another? That's interesting. I suppose that will naturally and simultaneously add incentive to make leagues bigger and also to limit a league's size. Make the league bigger for security's sake, bit limit size so that there's still someone else to fight against. I like the competing incentives and the balance this could bring. But if dueling is only enabled in the PvE phase, would two league-mates have to switch over to the PvE phase to fight each other? I would hope you enable some way to allow people to fight each other regardless of league affiliation in the PvP phase.
3. I think it has been too long since I've said this: Thank you Tannim and all the MWM developers for engaging with us in this sometimes spirited back and forth. I think we as potential players take it for granted some times. But we really are blessed to have this access to you and have such an obvious testament of your commitment and enthusiasm for the game.

1. Super Team is the phrase we've been using for "super group". Leagues are a collection of allied Super Teams.

2. Well dueling as "defined" is a limited pvp flag setting allowing two player characters to enter into combat against each other.

The technical aspect was to flag for pvp in the pve phase (this makes it easy to code).

We can look into making a Dueling Flag that operates in PvP - however there are certain aspects of pvp that make this a little harder to implement.

As I said earlier we may look into letting players make user-generated content with pvp settings. You could even possibly make the entrance inside your base (hello danger room anyone?).

3. You are so very welcome. And I thank you and everyone else who keep coming back to comment, ageee, disagree, and everything inbetween. It is your passion for this game to be the best that it can that keeps me encouraged to work all day long on under-the hood designs (like power sets) that haven't even been seen publically yet and to make everything as enjoyable as possible.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Not having defined factions

Not having defined factions/sides makes it so the only real way to implement open-world PvP is to effectively have a free-for-all system. The only effective difference I have been able to see between MWM's and Huck's systems is that MWM's has a scaling incentive system to engage others while Huck's has a flat one. I see one major advantage in the MWM one and that is that it effectively disincentivises going after weaker (lower rank) players.
Outside of self-preservation neither system has a direct disincentive to turn on a team mate.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
The incentive/disincentive

The incentive/disincentive systems intention (correct me if I am wrong Tannim) is to use win streaks/ranks as an indicator of a players skill then use reduced rewards to discourage attacking anyone with a lower win streak/rank. Assuming that the reverse is also true, you have increased rewards for defeating those of higher rank, this is the incentive to attack higher ranks.
So in MWMs system ranks equal skill and rewards are based off opponents rank.

There are so many holes in a system like this I am surprised they have not been discussed.

A small group of friends could use a simple round robin system to increase each others rank up to maximum very quickly. To counter this MWM would probably have to institute some time constraint on same foe rank gain. Now you have a disincentive to face the same foe. Disincentives do not promote an activity they just discourage it. This is not good for PvP in general.

How are win streaks/ranks handled in a team situation? Is it a kind of average in which case a single high rank PvP'r who is teamed with lower rank players now runs the risk of losing ranks based on who he teams with. This is a disincentive for high ranks to team with low ranks. Again, this acts as a disincentive.

Maybe team ranks are based on the highest rank player so now a team with one high rank player and a bunch of low rank players is a delicious target for a team of high rank players. This again discourages high ranks from teaming with low ranks.

What about the players with the highest ranks? They become targets to everyone, even those with lower ranks which means they will almost always risk more than they gain.

How do you organize a team vs team PvP tournament when it is possible that ranks make certain players incapable of attacking the other?

This system of win streaks and ranks is based more on discouraging negative actions than it is on encouraging positive ones and is full of loopholes that need to be filled. It is exactly the type of system that draws in the less desirable type of PvP player. Again, I am not saying everyone who likes this type of system is an undesirable, I am just saying the undesirable are attracted to this system.
There are quite a few games that use a similar type of ranking system, even popular ones like GTA, The Division or CoD, but their PvP community always ends up a toxic mess of griefers, exploiters and hackers.

It is worse in the type of free-for-all environment that MWM is going to have. You are not even going to provide an environment for those of us who enjoy PvP but do not want to get involved in the inevitable mess that an open world free-for-all server will have.

I again plead with MWM to reconsider and scrap their current PvP system or at the very least please put in some kind of arena where those involved can set the rules for their own contests.

Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 32 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

Not having defined factions/sides makes it so the only real way to implement open-world PvP is to effectively have a free-for-all system. The only effective difference I have been able to see between MWM's and Huck's systems is that MWM's has a scaling incentive system to engage others while Huck's has a flat one. I see one major advantage in the MWM one and that is that it effectively disincentivises going after weaker (lower rank) players.
Outside of self-preservation neither system has a direct disincentive to turn on a team mate.

Tannim said you cannot attack teammates (outside of possible consensual duels) - so this might incentivise people to join Teams/Groups/Leagues?

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 17 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
How's this for size?

How's this for size?

PvP Zone = free for all

PvP Team/League = Allies (cannot attack without consensual dueling) in PvP Zone

When leaving a team in a PvP Zone, you are given the option to leave the PvP Zone at the same time as you leave the PvP Team/League so as to not have a window of vulnerability upon leaving the PvP Team/League. Accepting this option upon quitting a PvP Team/League will transition the PC back to the PvE Zone.

Joining a PvP Team/League will include a warning pop-up which states that accepting the invite to a PvP Team/League will move the PC into the PvP Zone upon accepting if they are currently in the PvE Zone.

Basically, run the whole thing off a "flag for PvP" system that moves PCs from the PvE Zone to the PvP Zone and back again. After that, it's All-Against-All ... except that Temporary Alliances can be formed through use of Teaming, and as we all know, there is safety in numbers. That way, in a PvP Zone, it's possible for "heroes" to fight each other, and for "villains" to team up with "heroes" and all the rest of that, simply because as far as PvP is concerned, Everyone Is Hostile™ to you aside from your PvP Team/League, because it's All-Against-All. The only "allies" you have are the ones you choose to accept.

After that, it's just a matter of putting a fast enough respawn timer (5 minutes?) on NPC Contacts (because you KNOW they're going to get attacked by SOMEBODY!) and you can create an entire "alternate universe" of PvP that Players never need to leave. You make all of the NPCs at most "neutral" rather than outright "hostile" so as to be able to interact with vendor service NPCs and the like, but there's nothing saying you can't go around Defeating them either.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

How do you organize a team vs team PvP tournament when it is possible that ranks make certain players incapable of attacking the other?

If you are talking about Dev organized ones then I'm sure they can use instanced zones to make it battleground/arena-style and thus being able to tweak the rules a bit.

If you mean player run ones then we'll have to wait for the full rules to see how it would turn out.

Brainbot wrote:

I again plead with MWM to reconsider and scrap their current PvP system or at the very least please put in some kind of arena where those involved can set the rules for their own contests.

Then how about you come up with a better system for open world PvP, or at least give a few pointers.

They have already effectively said that there will be instanced PvP zones for battleground/arena style PvP, and even considered the possibility of giving players the choice of enabling PvP their in UGC.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

If you are talking about Dev organized ones then I'm sure they can use instanced zones to make it battleground/arena-style and thus being able to tweak the rules a bit.

If you mean player run ones then we'll have to wait for the full rules to see how it would turn out.

I mean both.
Waiting to see means it's too late to do anything about the result. I think I will continue to voice my concerns now while there is still the slimmest possibility of change.

blacke4dawn wrote:

Then how about you come up with a better system for open world PvP, or at least give a few pointers.

I have (IMO). Both for an open world PvP system as well as just general pointers. Do you want me to repeat it all here?
I have also been very vocal about my desire to limit open world PvP.

blacke4dawn wrote:

They have already effectively said that there will be instanced PvP zones for battleground/arena style PvP, and even considered the possibility of giving players the choice of enabling PvP their in UGC.

And I have already said that a centralized location from which to easily organize a tournament is important.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 39 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

The incentive/disincentive systems intention (correct me if I am wrong Tannim) is to use win streaks/ranks as an indicator of a players skill then use reduced rewards to discourage attacking anyone with a lower win streak/rank. Assuming that the reverse is also true, you have increased rewards for defeating those of higher rank, this is the incentive to attack higher ranks.
So in MWMs system ranks equal skill and rewards are based off opponents rank.

Rank doesn't apply "skill metrics" in the way that other pvp games use skill metrics to determine rank. Rank in this case is synonymous with "pvp level" which is an indicator to determine values for the player vs other plays for improving their "level".

Brainbot wrote:

There are so many holes in a system like this I am surprised they have not been discussed.
A small group of friends could use a simple round robin system to increase each others rank up to maximum very quickly. To counter this MWM would probably have to institute some time constraint on same foe rank gain. Now you have a disincentive to face the same foe. Disincentives do not promote an activity they just discourage it. This is not good for PvP in general.

If players were to attempt this, all they would achieve is in making it harder to improve their Rank over time because Achievements reset upon defeat. If you are on a Win Streak and 5 away from that next Win Streak "badge" (these are temporary makers which can be used to earn rewards such as rank improvement), and are defeated. Even if you've earned the first 10 Win Streak achievements, you have to work through them again to get to the one you haven't earned yet. Re-earning a previous Achievement will not provide any benefit for that Achievement. Ultimately, even if players work it out to improve their pvp rank, the only thing they've done is make them a larger target for other players. Each set of Ranks are bound within the level brackets of operable pvp.

Brainbot wrote:

How are win streaks/ranks handled in a team situation? Is it a kind of average in which case a single high rank PvP'r who is teamed with lower rank players now runs the risk of losing ranks based on who he teams with. This is a disincentive for high ranks to team with low ranks. Again, this acts as a disincentive.
Maybe team ranks are based on the highest rank player so now a team with one high rank player and a bunch of low rank players is a delicious target for a team of high rank players. This again discourages high ranks from teaming with low ranks.

Ranks disseminate the worth of the defeated player to everyone among the team, modified by the earner's rank. If a Rank 5 is teamed with Rank 1s, and they defeat a Rank 1, the Rank 1 successful players will receive their cut of the defeated player's value modified for their Rank, the Rank 5 player's portion will be significantly modified down making that practically not his while. Everyone would earn a Win Streak counter.

Brainbot wrote:

What about the players with the highest ranks? They become targets to everyone, even those with lower ranks which means they will almost always risk more than they gain.

Exactly, if you are in the open-world pvp phase and pvp a lot, you will eventually increase in rank. The higher ranks within their level bracket will be the targets to go after. You want to win to keep improving your rank and keep improving your achievements. Meanwhile, if you go around picking on lower ranks within your bracket even if they aren't earning you anything, your achievement modifier (such as Win Streak) makes you more Notorious, increasing the "bounty" on your head.

Brainbot wrote:

How do you organize a team vs team PvP tournament when it is possible that ranks make certain players incapable of attacking the other?

You don't need to worry about Rank in any tournaments unless you are trying to do so in the open world map. If there is something being done say in a pvp-rule set UGC map, or in one of the instanced pvp events, rank doesn't matter. The PvP rank and achievements is creates a system of incentive for players who want to improve to play against others that are worth their time for improving rank, and if they don't and pick on "the little guys" a lot, it paints a target on their back.
The level brackets are to ensure there isn't too wide a performance gap. Which allows lower rank players in the lower end of the level bracket to stand a chance against higher rank players in their level bracket.

Plenty of games have varying degrees of success with implementing bounty systems in pvp. This system provides incentives to pvp and discourages it by providing a value for playing against others at or above your rank for the open world.

Brainbot wrote:

I again plead with MWM to reconsider and scrap their current PvP system or at the very least please put in some kind of arena where those involved can set the rules for their own contests.

The plan is to allow open world pvp for the start. As time goes on, to hopefully implement pvp modes, some in instanced content. There is the possibility to allow players to make pvp-ruleset maps in user generated content. We also have some other ideas for different types of pvp that we haven't discussed yet.

Originally, the plan was to allow open world pvp to be completely open - yup that level 50 going into starter areas and wreaking havoc. This system is meant to entirely prevent that allowing players to level up with the present danger of other unaffiliated players attacking them in the open.

I'd love to hear any other ideas for open-world pvp if you have them.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Rank doesn't apply "skill metrics" in the way that other pvp games use skill metrics to determine rank. Rank in this case is synonymous with "pvp level" which is an indicator to determine values for the player vs other plays for improving their "level".

I think you misunderstood me or I didn't explain it well.
The rank system improves as you defeat foes correct? So a higher rank is a representation of higher 'skill'. This is why you have a reduced reward for defeating foes of lower rank, because they have not 'proved' themselves to have the same 'skill'.

Tannim222 wrote:

If players were to attempt this, all they would achieve is in making it harder to improve their Rank over time because Achievements reset upon defeat. If you are on a Win Streak and 5 away from that next Win Streak "badge" (these are temporary makers which can be used to earn rewards such as rank improvement), and are defeated. Even if you've earned the first 10 Win Streak achievements, you have to work through them again to get to the one you haven't earned yet. Re-earning a previous Achievement will not provide any benefit for that Achievement.

One person beats the other 3 until he attains the highest rank, then the next defeats the other 2 until gaining highest rank and the next defeats the last until gaining highest rank. The only one not gaining rank is the last which could gain it the next time that groups decides to do this. It is an exploitable system which requires fixes that discourages repeat PvP.

Tannim222 wrote:

Ultimately, even if players work it out to improve their pvp rank, the only thing they've done is make them a larger target for other players.

I might need some clarification on this because it sound like there isn't any benefit to having a higher rank. If that's true, then I can see many PvP players seeking to keep their rank low to give them the widest range of targets.

Tannim222 wrote:

Each set of Ranks are bound within the level brackets of operable pvp.

I don't know what you are saying here. Can you explain this better?

Tannim222 wrote:

Ranks disseminate the worth of the defeated player to everyone among the team, modified by the earner's rank. If a Rank 5 is teamed with Rank 1s, and they defeat a Rank 1, the Rank 1 successful players will receive their cut of the defeated player's value modified for their Rank, the Rank 5 player's portion will be significantly modified down making that practically not his while. Everyone would earn a Win Streak counter.

This seems to encourage a ganking mentality. If everyone on a team is rewarded for the defeat of a single opponent in Pvp then that is exactly how things will go.
Regardless, the higher rank player is still not encouraged to team with lower ranked ones.

Tannim222 wrote:

Exactly, if you are in the open-world pvp phase and pvp a lot, you will eventually increase in rank. The higher ranks within their level bracket will be the targets to go after. You want to win to keep improving your rank and keep improving your achievements. Meanwhile, if you go around picking on lower ranks within your bracket even if they aren't earning you anything, your achievement modifier (such as Win Streak) makes you more Notorious, increasing the "bounty" on your head.

This system has a built in tipping point. Eventually a player will reach a point where they are only able to face opponents that do not increase their rank and only increase how much other get for defeating them. A point where it is all risk with no reward.

Tannim222 wrote:

You don't need to worry about Rank in any tournaments unless you are trying to do so in the open world map. If there is something being done say in a pvp-rule set UGC map, or in one of the instanced pvp events, rank doesn't matter.

That's good to know.

Tannim222 wrote:

Plenty of games have varying degrees of success with implementing bounty systems in pvp. This system provides incentives to pvp and discourages it by providing a value for playing against others at or above your rank for the open world.

Incentives/disincentives only work in encouraging a course of action if they are greater than the gain for taking another course of action. I do not see the minimal rank reward have much impact on most PvP players actions and as a result the disincentive for 'picking on the little guys' will have even less impact.

Tannim222 wrote:

The plan is to allow open world pvp for the start. As time goes on, to hopefully implement pvp modes, some in instanced content. There is the possibility to allow players to make pvp-ruleset maps in user generated content. We also have some other ideas for different types of pvp that we haven't discussed yet.

Plans can and should change if they are bad, which I firmly believe this to be.
This open world free-for-all environment is going to be the first exposure many will have to PvP in CoT and it is completely uninviting for the uninitiated. One only need look at GTA online to see the inevitable results of this type of PvP. It may be popular but it's also a haven for griefers, exploiters and hackers.
It's naive to think that CoT's PvP will become as popular as something like GTA's so inviting that element into the game instead of encouraging a more friendly type of PvP seems to me to be a huge misstep.

Tannim222 wrote:

I'd love to hear any other ideas for open-world pvp if you have them.

I devised an entire PvP system that would work for both open world and arena style PvP HERE. I have since come up with fixes to many of the issues people had to the system (including the separation of PvE character and PvP characters) but did not bother to update because it was so poorly received. If you are interested I can give you the revised system. Please keep in mind that both the original and the revised are long reads.

I also gave some general guidlines HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE. Those are from a time when I still assumed open PvP would be limited to sections of the city and not an entire server but I don't think it really matters to any of the suggestions.

Amerikatt
Amerikatt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 55 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/27/2013 - 08:54
My vision: PvP zone is on a

My vision: PvP zone is on a small island at the farthest corner of the game map, across a vast stretch of ocean. There is no way off the island once you enter that zone, except to traverse the monster-infested Burning Sands Desert and win 10 Steel Cage Death Matches in a row. The losers have their limp bodies thrown into the King Shark Clone-infested waters around the island and that character is deleted from the player's account.

The winner doesn't even get a badge!

Now THAT is hardcore PvP!

*sage nod*

*rubs forepaws together*

*sinister purr*

Want a dance song that will get stuck in your head all day?This is my jam!
MeSoSollyWan
MeSoSollyWan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 41 min 32 sec ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/18/2014 - 00:54
Tannim, can player characters

Tannim, can player characters that are on polar opposites of the alignment system be in the same Super Team/League? Or, even in the same party?

And seriously thank you for all of your responses. It's incredible.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 8 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
MeSoSollyWan wrote:
MeSoSollyWan wrote:

Tannim, can player characters that are on polar opposites of the alignment system be in the same Super Team/League? Or, even in the same party?
And seriously thank you for all of your responses. It's incredible.

I would imagine they could probably set up a system where the Super Team/League could set up an alignment requirement, while at the same time allowing anything goes.

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 5 hours ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
MeSoSollyWan wrote:
MeSoSollyWan wrote:

Tannim, can player characters that are on polar opposites of the alignment system be in the same Super Team/League? Or, even in the same party?

Might want to also ask this in the FAQ thread. This is a good general question that's probably going to come up a lot.

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 17 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
MeSoSollyWan wrote:
MeSoSollyWan wrote:

Tannim, can player characters that are on polar opposites of the alignment system be in the same Super Team/League? Or, even in the same party?

Usually opposed ... currently aligned for a common purpose.

This sort of team up of Frenemies happens quite frequently in comics and is in fact a staple of the genre. I see no reason why alignments ought to put a disqualifier on who you want to team up with "right now" while playing.

Now, if you stay teamed up with someone who is your polar opposite in alignment "forever" I would expect that the alignments would start to converge towards each other at some point, but that ought to be an issue of prolonged exposure to each other (and sharing content with each other) rather than a matter of "cooties" preventing any possible cooperation at all in the first place.

Basically this comes down to a question of Barriers To Teaming in the context of a MMORPG. I think we can all pretty much agree that the Barriers To Teaming found in other games can be pretty annoying, particularly in games where different Factions are always hostile to each other by default assumption (and enforced by the "rules" of the game). Do we NEED to have similar Barriers to Teaming in City of Titans? Remember, City of Heroes had co-op zones like the Rikti War Zone where Heroes and Villains could team up with no problems whatsoever.

I keep thinking that a "co-op free-for-all" PvP zone strikes the best balance. Every PC in the zone is an enemy ... unless they're an ally. Who picks the allies? The respective Players do, by Teaming up via mutual consent.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

MeSoSollyWan wrote:
Tannim, can player characters that are on polar opposites of the alignment system be in the same Super Team/League? Or, even in the same party?
And seriously thank you for all of your responses. It's incredible.
I would imagine they could probably set up a system where the Super Team/League could set up an alignment requirement, while at the same time allowing anything goes.

I can't imagine MWM setting such restrictions since the major difficulty will be in who/what is the reference point and how far "away" from it to allow joining.

No even sure if it's worth it for MWM to set up a player configurable system to enforce it when it can be handled fully manually (assuming we can easily see other players alignment) well enough.

MeSoSollyWan
MeSoSollyWan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 41 min 32 sec ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/18/2014 - 00:54
^^^ I am almost 100$ sure

^^^ I am about 99% sure that a dev in this thread said you can not see other players' alignment? I could totally be wrong though!

Lin Chiao Feng wrote:

MeSoSollyWan wrote:
Tannim, can player characters that are on polar opposites of the alignment system be in the same Super Team/League? Or, even in the same party?
Might want to also ask this in the FAQ thread. This is a good general question that's probably going to come up a lot.

Thanks, will do!

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
This question was already

This question was already answered in post 18 of this thread, the same post that says you cannot see others alignment.

MeSoSollyWan
MeSoSollyWan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 41 min 32 sec ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/18/2014 - 00:54
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

This question was already answered in post 18 of this thread, the same post that says you cannot see others alignment.

There is it!

I think part of that post is still kind of ambiguous on whether or not they can join said Leagues, etc. Would it not be kind of weird to add someone to your hero group, only to find out that they have been consistently committing crimes?

Or maybe that's what is exciting about it! What if there is a way to "infiltrate" groups by doing such a thing...? But I fear that opens a door for griefing if there are shared items and such in bases.

Either way is cool, really.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
MeSoSollyWan wrote:
MeSoSollyWan wrote:

I think part of that post is still kind of ambiguous on whether or not they can join said Leagues, etc. Would it not be kind of weird to add someone to your hero group, only to find out that they have been consistently committing crimes?

I guess it doesn't specifically say but I can't see any other interpretation from when Tannim said ' it isn't used to enforce a player-faction segregation system'. Nothing wrong with clearing it up though.

The reason why it seems like it would be weird is because many people are still kinda confused about the alignment system. They are still thinking in Hero/Vigilante/Villain terms. The alignment system has nothing to do with those terms. Its Law/Violence/Honor.

Now the following is what I have gathered through comments from devs at various times. I could be wrong about some or all of this and it would be nice to get some kind of confirmation from a dev.
The idea behind the Law/Violence/Honor alignment system is to allow for players to decide if they are a hero or villain. You character can break every law, be ultra violent and never keep his word but still consider himself a hero. Their rationalization for their actions is their own to make.

Another thing people seem to be confusing about the alignment system is they are thinking in terms of D&D alignments. These alignments are not the definition of your character but instead of your characters actions. In D&D your alignment defines what you can do, in CoT what you do defines your alignment.
Basically, the alignment system is a history of your characters choices and not a set of hard rules you must follow. You can choose to follow rules to ensure you have a specific alignment but you are not forced to at all.

When you think of alignment in 'sum of past actions' terms the idea that any alignments can team or form supergroups isn't that weird.
An example in comics would be the X-Men. You got an upright boy scout character like Cyclops next to a professional thief (Gambit), a very violent warrior (Wolverine), a creature that destroyed planets (Phoenix), assassin (Revanche), would be world conqueror (Magneto), infiltrator (Mimic) and the list just goes on and on. Many of these characters would have alignments that would generally indicate a vigilante or villainous alignment but they all want to make the world a better place they just have differing ideas on how to do it. Despite those differences they work as a team (more or less) and for the most part consider themselves heroes. Even the Justice League has it's share of members who are less than noble.

The CoT alignment system also has an element of how NPC's see you character, kinda like the Reputation system, but I am still a little fuzzy on the details there so I won't go into that.

The idea of heroes and villains, good and bad, does not apply to CoT's alignment system.

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 50 min ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
I love the X-Men

I love the X-Men

Impulse King
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 32 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 18:55
I know this thread took off

I know this thread took off running with serious discussion, but I'm still somewhat surprised no one has suggested the PvP phase play like a mayhem mission. Think about it. Could be a lot of fun! (For those waiting on the explanation, mayhem missions were villain side and featured destructible objects such as mailboxes, lamp posts, fire hydrants, and CARS.)

Alright maybe not for the general game, but maybe as an optional PvP mode or content?

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 50 min ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
That would be awesome to have

That would be awesome to have as an option for pvp content.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 17 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
There are UE4 games in

There are UE4 games in development where EVERYTHING in the environment is destructible ... including skyscrapers ... meaning you can use the CITY to attack your enemies, through clever use of demolitions to topple really large things onto stuff (and people).


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 8 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

There are UE4 games in development where EVERYTHING in the environment is destructible ... including skyscrapers ... meaning you can use the CITY to attack your enemies, through clever use of demolitions to topple really large things onto stuff (and people).

My roommate saw an anime series recently, the people who'd been experimenting on mutants thought they had their meeting room secured against the superterrorist, until he dropped the taller building a few blocks away onto theirs...

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Avatar courtesy of Satellite Nine.

Millennium City Refugee

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Foradain wrote:
Foradain wrote:

Redlynne wrote:
There are UE4 games in development where EVERYTHING in the environment is destructible ... including skyscrapers ... meaning you can use the CITY to attack your enemies, through clever use of demolitions to topple really large things onto stuff (and people).
My roommate saw an anime series recently, the people who'd been experimenting on mutants thought they had their meeting room secured against the superterrorist, until he dropped the taller building a few blocks away onto theirs...

Ohh, what's it named?

Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 32 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
Impulse King wrote:
Impulse King wrote:

I know this thread took off running with serious discussion, but I'm still somewhat surprised no one has suggested the PvP phase play like a mayhem mission. Think about it. Could be a lot of fun! (For those waiting on the explanation, mayhem missions were villain side and featured destructible objects such as mailboxes, lamp posts, fire hydrants, and CARS.)
Alright maybe not for the general game, but maybe as an optional PvP mode or content?

I loved the mayhem and safeguard missions - I hope we get something similar in CoT - whether in PVP or PVE.

Amerikatt
Amerikatt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 55 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/27/2013 - 08:54
Every time that a PvP player

Every time that a PvP player loses a match, their character is permanently deleted from their account.

Better yet, why have PvP in this game at all?!

*stabs PvPers in the ankle with a rusty fork*

Want a dance song that will get stuck in your head all day?This is my jam!
Scott Jackson
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 33 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/20/2013 - 20:13
<_<

<_<
>_>
I wonder what happens to forum PvPers?

Amerikatt
Amerikatt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 55 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/27/2013 - 08:54
Scott Jackson wrote:
Scott Jackson wrote:

<_<
>_>
I wonder what happens to forum PvPers?

Their CoT accounts will be transferred to Hello Kitty Online!

So decrees Her Cuteness, the Benevolent Dictator of Kattsylvania!

So let it be written! So let it be done!

Want a dance song that will get stuck in your head all day?This is my jam!
Impulse King
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 32 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 18:55
Amerikatt wrote:
Amerikatt wrote:

Scott Jackson wrote:
<_<
>_>
I wonder what happens to forum PvPers?
Their CoT accounts will be transferred to Hello Kitty Online!
So decrees Her Cuteness, the Benevolent Dictator of Kattsylvania!
So let it be written! So let it be done!

*Makes a shiny mouse character intent on stealing all catnip in the world.*

Forum PvP can have it's place too. Just in this thread, as folks advocated for their ideas, we have learned much about the game we did not previously know. Much of it about PvP, but also about the tri axis alignment, faction reputation, Super Teams, and Leagues. I doubt we would have learned so much without the impassioned convictions of our fellow forumgoers.

Amerikatt
Amerikatt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 55 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/27/2013 - 08:54
Impulse King wrote:
Impulse King wrote:

Amerikatt wrote:
Scott Jackson wrote:
<_<
>_>
I wonder what happens to forum PvPers?
Their CoT accounts will be transferred to Hello Kitty Online!
So decrees Her Cuteness, the Benevolent Dictator of Kattsylvania!
So let it be written! So let it be done!
*Makes a shiny mouse character intent on stealing all catnip in the world.*

Please do! Kitty crack is whack! Just say NO to catnip!

Want a dance song that will get stuck in your head all day?This is my jam!
Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 1 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
I will never understand the

I will never understand the anti-PvPer hate that shows up sometimes on CoT forums. For a generally open and accepting community, it just seems so out of place. I'm not a PvPer, but I PvP'd in CoH for a change of pace once in a while because, like everything else, they made it easy to do. I did enough to see the good, the bad, and the ugly. But some player being a douche once in a while wasn't that big of a deal wasn't unique to PvP. It happened plenty in PvE, though less often.

What I mean to say is, MWM has gone to all of the trouble to proclaim that CoT will be a PvE focused game and to set it up so that those who don't want to PvP will barely even be aware that it exists and will not have to ever do it for any reason. AND PvP will have no effect on the PvE game. The PvPers will have their own little world doing their thing. I can't understand why anyone would disapprove just on the basis that they are even allowed to exist.

I have to say I had some fun and memorable times with good folks in PvP, and the bad and ugly times didn't negate them. I doesn't make sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some here sound like they're irate simply that PvP exists as a thing at all. But if others enjoy it and it doesn't affect you, why should you care?

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

Pages