Announcements

Watch this space for important information on planned twitch streams, updates and more

How should the PvP phase play? Give your visions here

227 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 33 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Well, I'm a cooperator, not a

Well, I'm a cooperator, not a competitor, so PvP offends me, at a basic level. That said, the idea of saying to another person, that they 'can't play that way' is more offensive. So, while I won't PvP and don't want to share space with people who would PvP on me, I'm not about to deny them the privilege of playing the way they want.

CoT is offering them a whole world-layer to do what they want. Out of sight, out of mind, as long as I don't have to deal with them. If someone wants to interpret that as 'hate'... well, I can't really argue. I have never, not even once, had a positive experience regarding PvP.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 11 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
Empyrean wrote:
Empyrean wrote:

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?

Completely agree. I was a huge PVPer in COH and some of the comments against PVP here have seemed worse than any actual trolling I experienced in the game.

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 59 min 33 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Well, I'm a cooperator, not a competitor, so PvP offends me, at a basic level. That said, the idea of saying to another person, that they 'can't play that way' is more offensive. So, while I won't PvP and don't want to share space with people who would PvP on me, I'm not about to deny them the privilege of playing the way they want.
CoT is offering them a whole world-layer to do what they want. Out of sight, out of mind, as long as I don't have to deal with them. If someone wants to interpret that as 'hate'... well, I can't really argue. I have never, not even once, had a positive experience regarding PvP.
Be Well!
Fireheart

Nah. That's not hate. Your attitude isn't the kind behind the comments I'm talking about. It's those who aren't even "live and let live" about it--which is the epitome of irony, if you think about it.

I'm not even a PvPer. I HAVE PvP'd, and have had a few memorably fun, as well as some not so fun, experiences. But I highly doubt PvP made up 5% of my play time in any MMORPG. I'm just genuinely perplexed by the attitude and surprised to see it so often here.

I'm personally glad there will be one more thing--go visit the PvPers in their insulated world--that I can do on a whim or a lark for something different. And if I'm not having fun, I can just come on home to where I belong, PvE side.

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

Airhead
Airhead's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 28 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 23:38
I liked CoH PvP as a very

I liked CoH PvP as a very rare distraction. The background threat to chasing missions and badges in the war zones provided a unique atmosphere.

In a world where anyone is a potential enemy, because of a refusal to label players with sides, then it just becomes a place to solo. But if "good" or "evil" (or the three alignments) are modified by behaviour in PvP zones, and somehow MATTER enough for players to stay on track, and the alignment can be checked by other players (eg. a police database for Law or Violence) then there is potential consistency. If everyone is rewarded for behaving like the Joker then I would play GTA instead.

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

Scott Jackson
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/20/2013 - 20:13
I agree that our PvP/PvE

I agree that our PvP/PvE community has a decent chance of showing off how to make a low-toxin environment, due to the full optional nature being touted by MWM. Especially true if there are solid options for structured PvP and indirect PvP (in addition to phased open world) that can help more experienced PVPers introduce it in a positive way to others. I'm too hypercooperative as a player to actually PvP, but that also means I'll cooperate with PVPer needs and wants during each issue's design, and try to prevent game rules that would pit us against each other over rebalancing and limited dev resources. Even well-meaning dev teams can accidentally set up drop rates or chat features in a way that sets players into metagame conflict. CoT is too important to let that happen.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Scott Jackson wrote:
Scott Jackson wrote:

I agree that our PvP/PvE community has a decent chance of showing off how to make a low-toxin environment, due to the full optional nature being touted by MWM.

This would be lovely.

Amerikatt
Amerikatt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 day ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/27/2013 - 08:54
I apologize if I have

I apologize if I have offended the good-natured PvPers out there.

As those of you who have come to know me -- in CoH and these forums -- know, I am a generally upbeat person. However, the subject of PvP is a hot button for me, as I have repeatedly been gang-ganked on those rare occasions where I have tried to get a PvE badge in a PvP zone.

Trash talk from the miscreants in PvP zones is bad enough, but gang-ganks? Do those PvPers have such low self-esteem that they have to hunt in packs in order to assure a victory against a single target? In the real world, there is a name for such criminal behavior!

I do not begrudge those players who wish to engage in PvP -- as long as their idea of fun does not involve ruining the fun of other players.

Just a cat from another star!
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 2 sec ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Amerikatt wrote:
Amerikatt wrote:

However, the subject of PvP is a hot button for me, as I have repeatedly been gang-ganked on those rare occasions where I have tried to get a PvE badge in a PvP zone.
Trash talk from the miscreants in PvP zones is bad enough, but gang-ganks? Do those PvPers have such low self-esteem that they have to hunt in packs in order to assure a victory against a single target? In the real world, there is a name for such criminal behavior!
I do not begrudge those players who wish to engage in PvP -- as long as their idea of fun does not involve ruining the fun of other players.

With the system Tannim has said they will establish for the PvP phase in CoT, I fear the PvP phase will be exactly what you dislike PvP to be. There will be more to fear than to gain by the system they are setting up.

"In a system in which humans are a component of the system; regardless of the intended design, the performance of the system will be dependent upon the motivations of the humans in the system"

With this postulate in mind, in the PvP system MWM has said they are establishing, maintaining your kill streak will be the primary motivation. So in fear of losing their kill streaks and to build them up, players will be motivated to join up in gangs and kill weaker opponents. There will be too much to lose in a fair fight. Solo players will be the livestock upon which the kill-streakers prey. And fear of losing a kill-streak will actually drive players from PvP until they are assured of having enough homies with them to protect it. So it will become a sparse wasteland of rival gangs who will only be present for short periods when they can all get together looking for easy targets to build their respective kill streaks.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Amerikatt wrote:
However, the subject of PvP is a hot button for me, as I have repeatedly been gang-ganked on those rare occasions where I have tried to get a PvE badge in a PvP zone.
Trash talk from the miscreants in PvP zones is bad enough, but gang-ganks? Do those PvPers have such low self-esteem that they have to hunt in packs in order to assure a victory against a single target? In the real world, there is a name for such criminal behavior!
I do not begrudge those players who wish to engage in PvP -- as long as their idea of fun does not involve ruining the fun of other players.
With the system Tannim has said they will establish for the PvP phase in CoT, I fear the PvP phase will be exactly what you dislike PvP to be. There will be more to fear than to gain by the system they are setting up.
"In a system in which humans are a component of the system; regardless of the intended design, the performance of the system will be dependent upon the motivations of the humans in the system"
With this postulate in mind, in the PvP system MWM has said they are establishing, maintaining your kill streak will be the primary motivation. So in fear of losing their kill streaks and to build them up, players will be motivated to join up in gangs and kill weaker opponents. There will be too much to lose in a fair fight. Solo players will be the livestock upon which the kill-streakers prey. And fear of losing a kill-streak will actually drive players from PvP until they are assured of having enough homies with them to protect it. So it will become a sparse wasteland of rival gangs who will only be present for short periods when they can all get together looking for easy targets to build their respective kill streaks.

Social dynamics create mergent game play. When a system encourages socisl dymanics...

And for the record, kill streaks are only one possible achievement in pvp.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Social dynamics create mergent game play. When a system encourages socisl dymanics...

I fail to see what social dynamics you are alluding to. Care to elaborate?

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 6 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Amerikatt wrote:
However, the subject of PvP is a hot button for me, as I have repeatedly been gang-ganked on those rare occasions where I have tried to get a PvE badge in a PvP zone.
Trash talk from the miscreants in PvP zones is bad enough, but gang-ganks? Do those PvPers have such low self-esteem that they have to hunt in packs in order to assure a victory against a single target? In the real world, there is a name for such criminal behavior!
I do not begrudge those players who wish to engage in PvP -- as long as their idea of fun does not involve ruining the fun of other players.
With the system Tannim has said they will establish for the PvP phase in CoT, I fear the PvP phase will be exactly what you dislike PvP to be. There will be more to fear than to gain by the system they are setting up.
"In a system in which humans are a component of the system; regardless of the intended design, the performance of the system will be dependent upon the motivations of the humans in the system"
With this postulate in mind, in the PvP system MWM has said they are establishing, maintaining your kill streak will be the primary motivation. So in fear of losing their kill streaks and to build them up, players will be motivated to join up in gangs and kill weaker opponents. There will be too much to lose in a fair fight. Solo players will be the livestock upon which the kill-streakers prey. And fear of losing a kill-streak will actually drive players from PvP until they are assured of having enough homies with them to protect it. So it will become a sparse wasteland of rival gangs who will only be present for short periods when they can all get together looking for easy targets to build their respective kill streaks.

I may not be recalling the same comments by Tannim that you are, but I was fairly sure that his comments on kill streaks were about one-on-one fights, and with weighting against lower level or lower ranked opponents (beating someone in your own weight-class is normal, beating someone weaker gets you less, and beating someone stronger than you gets you more). If they weren't one-on-one, then I would be surprised if they didn't similarly weight the rewards against the larger team. So a gang jumping on someone who just entered the PvP realm wouldn't get them much, if any, increase in their rating.

Also, note why Amerikatt had been in a position where she could be attacked PvP: she was after a PvE badge. As described by the devs, I see no reason why a PvE badge would require going into the PvP realm. Just go to the equivalent spot in the PvE realm.

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Avatar courtesy of Satellite Nine.
If you can't see an image I've posted, please let me know!

Amerikatt
Amerikatt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 day ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/27/2013 - 08:54
Foradain wrote:
Foradain wrote:

Also, note why Amerikatt had been in a position where she could be attacked PvP: she was after a PvE badge. As described by the devs, I see no reason why a PvE badge would require going into the PvP realm. Just go to the equivalent spot in the PvE realm.

I am sorry if I have overreacted with regard to PvP, but even that short time was traumatic. As long as the CoT Devs do not put PvE content in a PvP zone or give us only 2-3 seconds to cross a previously-PvE zone before it turns into a PvP zone, I will try to be less stressed about PvP.

For the record, after numerous, unsuccessful attempts at getting that badge in CoH, a good-natured PvPer ran interference for me so that I could get it! Not all PvPers are jerks, but those few who are ruin the rep for those who are not.

*downs a couple of industrial-sized bottles of Chill Pills*

Just a cat from another star!
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Huckleberry's assertion is

Huckleberry's assertion is that the pvp system will encourge players to work together to defeat other players. This occurs in most open-world pvp games. The result of the system is that those who are continually successful in pvp will also have a "bounty" on them.

What typically happens in open world pvp where a group becomes dominant is that players tend to band together to oppose the dominant group. Since the dominant group in this system will have a bounty on them, they will be worth-while targets to take on.

Creating safe guards such as level brackets will prevent high levels wrecking low level areas, safe areas, and a ranked system all help to provide an environment within open-world where players can participate with similar players n pvp.

Amerikatt, we have repratedly stated that all pvp will be optional, and never enforced.

Pvp is its own phase of the game world, you never have to enter it. The only badge differences will be pvp-related badges. Everything else is the same.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Amerikatt
Amerikatt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 day ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/27/2013 - 08:54
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Amerikatt, we have repratedly stated that all pvp will be optional, and never enforced.

Pvp is its own phase of the game world, you never have to enter it. The only badge differences will be pvp-related badges. Everything else is the same.

YAY! A Dev acknowledged me by name!

*swoons*

*flops over on her side*

*dreams of Mr. Boots*

[Thanks! That's VERY reassuring, Tannim!]

Just a cat from another star!
Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 33 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
I like the general shape of

I like the general shape of what you're describing, Tannim. I think it will help encourage those positive social dynamics that City players value. I genuinely hope that 'positive' PvP will encourage those same qualities to flourish in PvE. That said, I don't anticipate ever flipping my 'PvP Switch'.

Still, I'm intrigued by the possibilities of 'indirect PvP'. I've experienced 'races', and forms of 'ball games' that were kinda fun and rewarded team cooperation. I'm certainly interested in the idea of 'parallel missions with opposed goals', especially if they don't just boil down to speed-runs. I could see competitive 'Pylon Runs', where both Survival and DPS were tested and the fans gathered 'round to shout encouragement.

I just don't support 'murdering other players' for fun and profit.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 2 sec ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

I like the general shape of what you're describing, Tannim. I think it will help encourage those positive social dynamics that City players value. I genuinely hope that 'positive' PvP will encourage those same qualities to flourish in PvE. That said, I don't anticipate ever flipping my 'PvP Switch'.
Still, I'm intrigued by the possibilities of 'indirect PvP'. I've experienced 'races', and forms of 'ball games' that were kinda fun and rewarded team cooperation. I'm certainly interested in the idea of 'parallel missions with opposed goals', especially if they don't just boil down to speed-runs. I could see competitive 'Pylon Runs', where both Survival and DPS were tested and the fans gathered 'round to shout encouragement.
I just don't support 'murdering other players' for fun and profit.

Yeah, I was hoping the PvP side of things would be the same game as PvE but just with player on player combat enabled. That to me sounds like a very fun place to play so long as I know that heroes would not ambush other heroes. (notice I did not say "could not") However, with the way it is being designed, it looks to be only a place to fight other players. Anyone attempting to consume PvE content in the PvP phase will just be foolish.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 11 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
Ok.. if they are different

Ok.. if they are different instances but the same game then why do you need to enter PVP phase for PVE content? I don't get the issue.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 2 sec ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

Ok.. if they are different instances but the same game then why do you need to enter PVP phase for PVE content? I don't get the issue.

Exactly. I thought I was quite clear in stating why I was disappointed.

I would have liked to play the complete game in the PvP phase. That includes PvE content. But only if heroes would act like heroes and villains would act like villians. But as it is, that hope is dashed. There will be no incentive for heroes to act like heroes and every incentive for all players to gank each other whenever possible. Thus my dream world will not exist and I will probably never enter the PvP phase.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 11 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
I don't understand how you

I don't understand how you expect heroes and villains to act other than fighting each other?

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 59 min 33 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
I like the way MWM is

I really like the way MWM is thinking, but I agree with Huck that it'd be cool if in PvP there were some incentive, at least in some instances, for people on the more Heroic side of the three-alignment spectrum to go against those on the more Villainous side of the spectrum.

HEY, what if there were certain arias that had different rules (like PvP zones had different rules in CoH) so that you could go to one area for truly open "wild west" PvP, then another area for Hero vs Villain PvP (based on total alignment score) and then other "care bear" areas (and I am a care bear, so I don't mean that in a negative way) that allowed for non-combat "indirect" PvP like Fireheart likes? You could attach a warning and a "go back" option to make sure noone accidentally goes from care bear land to the wild west.

I know it's easy for me to just spitball ideas but hard for the Devs to actually plan, develop, and test them, but I think this could have potential.

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

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 18 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I think many of us are still

I think many of us are still mad at the people who ganked us in Warburg when we were just trying to get some temp powers back in the day.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Empyrean wrote:
Empyrean wrote:

I really like the way MWM is thinking, but I agree with Huck that it'd be cool if in PvP there were some incentive, at least in some instances, for people on the more Heroic side of the three-alignment spectrum to go against those on the more Villainous side of the spectrum.
HEY, what if there were certain arias that had different rules (like PvP zones had different rules in CoH) so that you could go to one area for truly open "wild west" PvP, then another area for Hero vs Villain PvP (based on total alignment score) and then other "care bear" areas (and I am a care bear, so I don't mean that in a negative way) that allowed for non-combat "indirect" PvP like Fireheart likes? You could attach a warning and a "go back" option to make sure noone accidentally goes from care bear land to the wild west.
I know it's easy for me to just spitball ideas but hard for the Devs to actually plan, develop, and test them, but I think this could have potential.

One thing to understand is the pvp phase is only the start. We have to keep things simple for us to launch. It is my hope that over time we will add pvp events that allow players to take sides which correspond with their application of alignment. Perhaps add in forms of include pvevp. Who knows, we may end up adding in open-world-tri-axis-rule sets for pvp.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 2 sec ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
I don't think the three axis

I don't think the three axis alignment system has a place in PvP. The only real axis that matters is lawful vs. unlawful. Because PvP is combat its very nature, peaceful vs. violent just doesn't seem like it would make any sense. And honorable vs dishonorable is too nebulous to draw a line across. No, the 3-axis alignment system will probably work well in the PvE world where NPC interactions and dialogue matters can be scripted, and where they will exist as part of the game from the foundations on up; but is just too convoluted for PvP.

Imagine a city in which heroes were the only superpowered people. It would be a safe city in which heroes would pass each other with a friendly wave and anyone who started a fight would be in trouble.

Now imagine a city where only villains existed. It would be cutthroat with every man out for himself, with tentative alliances and backroom agreements. You have to always be on your toes because you never know if the other guy is going to stab you in the back or not.

In Titan City we will have both heroes and villains. How would they interact? How would they coexist? Would they? Anyone performing a villainous act would identify themselves as a target of opportunity for anyone else who wants to stop them. For argument's sake, let us label the actions of people who want to stop bad actors as heroic. I know that even a bad person who would otherwise self-identify as a villain could take action to stop someone committing a villainous act. And in such a case, doing so is a heroic act, regardless of how the person identifies him or herself.

Thus heroes and villains would identify themselves by their actions, not by any label they wear on their sleeve.

So should PvP play, in my opinion. Anyone who wants to just attack other players would be identifying themselves as villainous. Anyone fighting against a villainous player would identify themselves as heroic. At least for that fight, and until they attack another person trying to act heroically. And with every such fight these people build their own reputations a bit more until eventually some people are so consistently villainous that they have a reputation as villainous actors and get to wear the villain label. Likewise some people will be so consistently heroic that they can eventually get the hero label. Everyone else either is content to exist in the flexible grey area between hero and villain or continues to strive towards one end or the other. And the labels hero and villain are badges, so to speak, rewarded based upon actual gameplay history, not just identifiers slapped onto someone who wants to play blue side or red side.

That, to me, sounds like a far more interesting PvP environment than the one MWM plans to implement in which all characters are villains and gank each other whenever they want to, without regard to the rightness or wrongness as seen by the citizens of Titan City.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 59 min 33 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

I think many of us are still mad at the people who ganked us in Warburg when we were just trying to get some temp powers back in the day.

Yeah, that was bad design meeting the crappy side of human nature.

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

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 59 min 33 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

One thing to understand is the pvp phase is only the start. We have to keep things simple for us to launch. It is my hope that over time we will add pvp events that allow players to take sides which correspond with their application of alignment. Perhaps add in forms of include pvevp. Who knows, we may end up adding in open-world-tri-axis-rule sets for pvp.

Understood. Appreciated. And SQUEEE!!! for the future of CoT.

Huckleberry wrote:

I don't think the three axis alignment system has a place in PvP. The only real axis that matters is lawful vs. unlawful. Because PvP is combat its very nature, peaceful vs. violent just doesn't seem like it would make any sense. And honorable vs dishonorable is too nebulous to draw a line across. No, the 3-axis alignment system will probably work well in the PvE world where NPC interactions and dialogue matters can be scripted, and where they will exist as part of the game from the foundations on up; but is just too convoluted for PvP.
Imagine a city in which heroes were the only superpowered people. It would be a safe city in which heroes would pass each other with a friendly wave and anyone who started a fight would be in trouble.
Now imagine a city where only villains existed. It would be cutthroat with every man out for himself, with tentative alliances and backroom agreements. You have to always be on your toes because you never know if the other guy is going to stab you in the back or not.
In Titan City we will have both heroes and villains. How would they interact? How would they coexist? Would they? Anyone performing a villainous act would identify themselves as a target of opportunity for anyone else who wants to stop them. For argument's sake, let us label the actions of people who want to stop bad actors as heroic. I know that even a bad person who would otherwise self-identify as a villain could take action to stop someone committing a villainous act. And in such a case, doing so is a heroic act, regardless of how the person identifies him or herself.
Thus heroes and villains would identify themselves by their actions, not by any label they wear on their sleeve.
So should PvP play, in my opinion. Anyone who wants to just attack other players would be identifying themselves as villainous. Anyone fighting against a villainous player would identify themselves as heroic. At least for that fight, and until they attack another person trying to act heroically. And with every such fight these people build their own reputations a bit more until eventually some people are so consistently villainous that they have a reputation as villainous actors and get to wear the villain label. Likewise some people will be so consistently heroic that they can eventually get the hero label. Everyone else either is content to exist in the flexible grey area between hero and villain or continues to strive towards one end or the other. And the labels hero and villain are badges, so to speak, rewarded based upon actual gameplay history, not just identifiers slapped onto someone who wants to play blue side or red side.
That, to me, sounds like a far more interesting PvP environment than the one MWM plans to implement in which all characters are villains and gank each other whenever they want to, without regard to the rightness or wrongness as seen by the citizens of Titan City.

I think that would be "a" good PvP environment, my idea is why should that be "the" PvP environment. Why couldn't or shouldn't there be different PvP environments divided by the different areas/zones of Titan City so you don't have to pick one and hope everyone likes it--which is much more work and answers the question "why" for the short term.

Anywho, let's just get this frickin game up and running and get enough players so that post-launch development can have a different PvP style in every zone!

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

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 11 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
Huck, how are they going to

Huck, how are they going to keep track if X person attacked Y person because Y person is a villain or X and Y just decided to randomly fight? I don't know why you need PVP to be labeled. I like the freedom of entering a zone and having the freedom of choice.

Let's say you enter a zone and immediately see someone being ganked. These are your options:

a.help the person being ganked by buffing/healing
b. gank the attackers
c. join the attackers (that would suck lol)
d. ignore
e. 1v1 another player
etc

Im sorry but I don't want to walk in and then immediately have to think about if my reputation is going to switch from villain to hero depending on the choices I make at that one moment and every moment I go into that zone. So I have to disagree with you and hope PVP is just open, and leave everything to us.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 2 sec ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

Huck, how are they going to keep track if X person attacked Y person because Y person is a villain or X and Y just decided to randomly fight? I don't know why you need PVP to be labeled. I like the freedom of entering a zone and having the freedom of choice.
Let's say you enter a zone and immediately see someone being ganked. These are your options:
a.help the person being ganked by buffing/healing
b. gank the attackers
c. join the attackers (that would suck lol)
d. ignore
e. 1v1 another player
etc
Im sorry but I don't want to walk in and then immediately have to think about if my reputation is going to switch from villain to hero depending on the choices I make at that one moment and every moment I go into that zone. So I have to disagree with you and hope PVP is just open, and leave everything to us.

It would be pretty easy. Because someone doing something villainous is going to be flagged so. Let's say they will be flagged red. You come into the area and see some red flagged players and some green flagged players. What would you do in any other PvP game? In this game, however, you have the option of attacking the green flagged player also, and by doing so, flag yourself red.

I don't see how that's difficult to grasp.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Fire Away
Fire Away's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 09:05
I have a couple of comments

I have a couple of comments but unfortunately no great solutions. First, you can bet your bottom dollar that any streak type pvp system will be gamed. If players can get away with it, they will do things like gang up on someone mercilessly and then allow a designated individual deliver the death blow to further a streak. Or they will rig pvp fights so that they aren't really fights at all to promote a streak. If the devs are OK with that then so be it. But let's not pretend it won't happen or that it won't be ugly if it's allowed.

Second, I remember back in the day (I'm talking circa 1950s-1960s...yeah I'm old so what?) the ladies danced with ladies on American Bandstand because there were just more women in the studio than men. My point? IIRC the hero to villain ratio in CoH was something like 80%-20% in favor of heroes. Granted, I hold no data on hero pvpers versus villain pvpers. But if this is close to being the case in CoT, aren't you are almost going to have to make some allowance for heroes to "dance" with heroes in a pvp sense (not always and not exclusively and not in all areas) when considering numbers balance type issues?

Impulse King
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 33 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 18:55
All very cool to know

All very cool to know Tannim222. I had a random thought pass my brain though. How will "Broadcast" (and other) chat be handled with respect to the different phases? Team chat, Super Team chat, and League chat are all probably fine as they were in CoH. But Broadcast in a PvP zone is often rather different from PvE and vice versa. I'll just assume whatever answer we may get for Broadcast applies to Local as well.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 2 sec ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Empyrean wrote:
Empyrean wrote:

I think that would be "a" good PvP environment, my idea is why should that be "the" PvP environment. Why couldn't or shouldn't there be different PvP environments divided by the different areas/zones of Titan City so you don't have to pick one and hope everyone likes it--which is much more work and answers the question "why" for the short term.

I agree completely. There should be areas where a free for all without repurcussions should be allowed. In fact I even said so in post #13 And I also agree with you that other areas with other rule-sets could be nice too. Especially in the beginning until they figure out what their playerbase goes for.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 11 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
"Because someone doing

"Because someone doing something villainous is going to be flagged-"

Can you give an example of someone doing something villainous and how the system would think that what they are doing is villainous?

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Fire Away wrote:
Fire Away wrote:

I have a couple of comments but unfortunately no great solutions. First, you can bet your bottom dollar that any streak type pvp system will be gamed. If players can get away with it, they will do things like gang up on someone mercilessly and then allow a designated individual deliver the death blow to further a streak. Or they will rig pvp fights so that they aren't really fights at all to promote a streak. If the devs are OK with that then so be it. But let's not pretend it won't happen or that it won't be ugly if it's allowed.
Second, I remember back in the day (I'm talking circa 1950s-1960s...yeah I'm old so what?) the ladies danced with ladies on American Bandstand because there were just more women in the studio than men. My point? IIRC the hero to villain ratio in CoH was something like 80%-20% in favor of heroes. Granted, I hold no data on hero pvpers versus villain pvpers. But if this is close to being the case in CoT, aren't you are almost going to have to make some allowance for heroes to "dance" with heroes in a pvp sense (not always and not exclusively and not in all areas) when considering numbers balance type issues?

Any system in a game can be gamed, it is a matrer of what bounds the game provides.

In the case of kill streaks - there are a couple of things to understand.

The intent is that PvP will ahve anranking system within level brackets.
The more wins you have, the higher your rank can get. One of the ways to track wins can be by a "kill streak". But, each rank (think achievement tier) will require more wins. However, if you are attacking someone in a lower rank- the "win xp" isn't worth as much. You won'r advance your ranking.

You will also gain norotieity - the more players you defeat makes you a target. Wracking up wins vs low ranked players would be a grind as a method of ranking up, but make you more of a target because defeating someone with high notoriety makes them worth more for your own ranking gain. Notoriety is rather like a multiplier of the pvp worth for a win.

Losing resets your achievements, which means having to work your way up the ladder again.

With regards to hero vs villain ratio - as I'be stated, Hero and Villain are labels players use. They are descriptive - not prescriptive and do not drive game play. The alignment system is based on a tri-axis of Law, Honor, and Violence. You can have a lawful, honorable, violent hero or a lawful, honorable, violent villain.

Players do not read alignments of other players. It is up to you - the player to decide the reasoning for how and why your character behaves, and how and why other characters are behaving the way they do.

On the pve side of things, your actions will determine your alignment ratings - and over time, your reputation with various factions reveal which areas you are welcomed or not.

Hence, alignment does not factor much for driving pvp - the morivations are up to the player to interpret for themselves.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 11 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Fire Away wrote:
I have a couple of comments but unfortunately no great solutions. First, you can bet your bottom dollar that any streak type pvp system will be gamed. If players can get away with it, they will do things like gang up on someone mercilessly and then allow a designated individual deliver the death blow to further a streak. Or they will rig pvp fights so that they aren't really fights at all to promote a streak. If the devs are OK with that then so be it. But let's not pretend it won't happen or that it won't be ugly if it's allowed.
Second, I remember back in the day (I'm talking circa 1950s-1960s...yeah I'm old so what?) the ladies danced with ladies on American Bandstand because there were just more women in the studio than men. My point? IIRC the hero to villain ratio in CoH was something like 80%-20% in favor of heroes. Granted, I hold no data on hero pvpers versus villain pvpers. But if this is close to being the case in CoT, aren't you are almost going to have to make some allowance for heroes to "dance" with heroes in a pvp sense (not always and not exclusively and not in all areas) when considering numbers balance type issues?
Any system in a game can be gamed, it is a matrer of what bounds the game provides.
In the case of kill streaks - there are a couple of things to understand.
The intent is that PvP will ahve anranking system within level brackets.
The more wins you have, the higher your rank can get. One of the ways to track wins can be by a "kill streak". But, each rank (think achievement tier) will require more wins. However, if you are attacking someone in a lower rank- the "win xp" isn't worth as much. You won'r advance your ranking.
You will also gain norotieity - the more players you defeat makes you a target. Wracking up wins vs low ranked players would be a grind as a method of ranking up, but make you more of a target because defeating someone with high notoriety makes them worth more for your own ranking gain. Notoriety is rather like a multiplier of the pvp worth for a win.
Losing resets your achievements, which means having to work your way up the ladder again.
With regards to hero vs villain ratio - as I'be stated, Hero and Villain are labels players use. They are descriptive - not prescriptive and do not drive game play. The alignment system is based on a tri-axis of Law, Honor, and Violence. You can have a lawful, honorable, violent hero or a lawful, honorable, violent villain.
Players do not read alignments of other players. It is up to you - the player to decide the reasoning for how and why your character behaves, and how and why other characters are behaving the way they do.
On the pve side of things, your actions will determine your alignment ratings - and over time, your reputation with various factions reveal which areas you are welcomed or not.
Hence, alignment does not factor much for driving pvp - the morivations are up to the player to interpret for themselves.

Good. I like this

Fire Away
Fire Away's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 09:05
Thanks to the detailed reply

Thanks for the detailed reply Tannim222! For now (no hands on experience), I think I'll stick to my guns that the kill streak system will be artificially manipulated (in ways we can't even predict yet) to insulate/inflate one's notoriety or ruin someone else's. By artificially I mean in ways that have little to do with pvp prowess. I purely speculate that this stat will reach the point where it'll be common knowledge that it's not a measure of pvp ability. But it definitely has the potential to torque off many when someone at the top rung is "unreachable" or worse, when someone feels they were knocked to the bottom rung unfairly after much effort. But that's just my opinion.

I very much appreciate your patience in explaining the alignment/motivation thing yet again. I'll be the first to admit it's not an intuitive concept in my head yet. Not saying it's a "wrong" idea though and it's obviously something you have committed to seeing through. So I would say the onus is on me as a player to better understand the rules to your game.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 2 sec ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

"Because someone doing something villainous is going to be flagged-"
Can you give an example of someone doing something villainous and how the system would think that what they are doing is villainous?

The easiest villianous action to determine is an unprovoked attack upon a non-villainous target. Period. But since this is PvP in a PvE city, I expect there will be NPCs abound who will be perpetrators of or victims of villainous acts. Bank robberies, purse-snatching, etc. Aiding one of those would also be considered a villainous act. You are asking questions that you could easily answer yourself if you only put some thought into it.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
In summation, this is what

In summation, this is what pvp in CoT will look like:

Tannim222 wrote:

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. The open world setting for pvp doesn't pick and choose sides based on alignment. Players do not read alignments of other players. It is up to you - the player to decide the reasoning for how and why your character behaves, and how and why other characters are behaving the way they do. On the pve side of things, your actions will determine your alignment ratings - and over time, your reputation with various factions reveal which areas you are welcomed or not. Hence, alignment does not factor much for driving pvp - the motivations are up to the player to interpret for themselves.

The decision was made to separate pve and pvp into different phases. Entering pvp flags you for pvp automatically (hence the is a warning). 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.

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 the 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. 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.

Just to be clear - there is a form of bounty system through 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 Notoriety (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 Rank 1 than he would need to progress if he were fighting other Rank 2s).
  • PK Player makes a target of himself to any other player because his Win Streak modifies his Rank "worth" for defeating him.

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". 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.

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.

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. The PvP rank and achievements 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.

Eventually, I know we plan to include events or modes of pvp on instance maps where there will be opposing teams. I personally hope to eventually include a form of pvevp using factions and control points. Which can provide "sides" to choose to support based on factions.

For reference, a Super Team in CoT is the equivalent of a Super Group from CoX. You can form alliances (called Leagues) between Super Teams (ST).
Outside of duels, you cannot pvp amongst your ST, a League or your current team of supers.

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
I have a question, what is

I have a question, what is "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" supposed to mean?

Essentially the moment I go PvP active everyone who is not on my team, in my Super Team or part of my League is an enemy. I cannot see anyone else's 3-Axis Alignment to judge whether they are friend or foe. I can't keep track of everyone I run across over the lifetime of the server. If Leagues (or ST) develop behavior patterns, you will be able to spot opponents.

So my only real indicator will be:

  • Is that guy worth wibbly wobbly points to me?
  • Hmmm, not worth points to me, but I am probably worth points to him. I can't risk getting jumped so I should attack him first.
  • I have a streak going (or whatever achievement), if I die I lose all progress. I do not want to risk getting jumped so I should attack him first.
  • Am I being baited into a trap? I think I'll just run away before they notice me/us.

It sounds like MWM wants the PvP phase to be one giant "Marvel Civil War" where heroes fight heroes in some ideological war that no one understands with villains mixed in for flavor.

The social engineering aspect will be a must to make this work and people are going to have to keep up to speed to understand where/how things shift.
We are going to need extensive explainers for how Leagues work, including how they are managed. It also means that if a player decides how they want to view their character, they might have to make Super Team decisions based on what "side" (and there will be more than just two) they are on.

Also, what happens if your ST is in multiple Leagues and there are players present from both Leagues? Can you attack none of them? Can you help neither side?

This is effectively making Huckleberry's argument again.

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 33 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
I thought the whole point of

I thought the whole point of Tannim's description is that MWM will not dictate any motives for PvP. The motivation is up to the individual player.

There will be social constructs which limit the ability to PvP at random, but those include communication channels which would allow people to choose to circumvent those limitations and arrange for PvP. What's difficult about 'don't gank your buddies'?

Be Well!
Fireheart

Impulse King
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 33 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 18:55
Planet10 wrote:
Planet10 wrote:

I have a question, what is "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" supposed to mean?
Essentially the moment I go PvP active everyone who is not on my team, in my Super Team or part of my League is an enemy. I cannot see anyone else's 3-Axis Alignment to judge whether they are friend or foe. I can't keep track of everyone I run across over the lifetime of the server. If Leagues (or ST) develop behavior patterns, you will be able to spot opponents.
So my only real indicator will be:Is that guy worth wibbly wobbly points to me?
Hmmm, not worth points to me, but I am probably worth points to him. I can't risk getting jumped so I should attack him first.
I have a streak going (or whatever achievement), if I die I lose all progress. I do not want to risk getting jumped so I should attack him first.
Am I being baited into a trap? I think I'll just run away before they notice me/us.It sounds like MWM wants the PvP phase to be one giant "Marvel Civil War" where heroes fight heroes in some ideological war that no one understands with villains mixed in for flavor.
The social engineering aspect will be a must to make this work and people are going to have to keep up to speed to understand where/how things shift.
We are going to need extensive explainers for how Leagues work, including how they are managed. It also means that if a player decides how they want to view their character, they might have to make Super Team decisions based on what "side" (and there will be more than just two) they are on.
Also, what happens if your ST is in multiple Leagues and there are players present from both Leagues? Can you attack none of them? Can you help neither side?
This is effectively making Huckleberry's argument again.

I read Leagues as essentially equaling coalitions. So yeah in open world PvP with a fragmented set of Leagues, you might not be able to help either side. Please note there are a LOT of qualifiers in that sentence. In future there may be PvP modes unaffected by ST or League. Time will tell on that. Folks might agree to break League for a time just to PvP then join up again after.

Also there is no strict need for a fragmented set of Leagues. It's an order of magnitude harder, but you can choose to have a league only where all member STs are allied with each other as well. I did this on redside Victory and we weren't the only group(s) to do so. In CoH we coined the term Super Coalition for this mega alliance. Here that would translate as Super League, but perhaps Mega League would cut down on confusion?

Side question! How many Super Teams can your Super Team League with?

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
The point is Tannim said it

The point is Tannim said it is up to the playerbase to decide the how & when of initiating PvP. The players have the agency.

The problem is that MWM injected an artificial reason to PvP in the form of rank & notoriety. In a general sense there is no penalty for defeat in PvE. Your character doesn't get deleted if you die. All of the enhancements you have slotted don't disappear. You might get some form of debuff that slows your XP gain (or some similar mechanic). In PvP you will lose your Achievements if you are defeated. That in itself is a reason to initiate combat. You might not have done anything to anyone, but you are now a source for someone else to rank up and you are a potential threat to Achievements. In this projected scheme for PvP the players will not be allowed to organically develop a persona in the PvP phase. Everything will boil down to 'are you in my League or not'.

People need to understand that there will not be just two sides in the PvP phase. It will be everyone in your League against everyone not in your League (a much larger pool of possibilities). Do you want to fight everyone that is not in your League? Maybe, but probably not. Will we be able to control our AoE powers to not hurt someone who is not in your League? Probably not since that kinda defeats the functionality of a League.

Let's say I have tussled with Reality Smasher Bob in the past. We have a long standing hatred between us. One day I see Bob pounding on some super named Fancy Butterfly Nancy that I have never seen before, but my experience tells me that Bob probably initiated and he needs to go down. Bob definitely is not in my League. I have never seen Nancy before and she is not in my League. If I roll in 3rd man into the fight, how do I stop my AoE powers from impacting Nancy? I can take the stance that Nancy as collateral damage doesn't matter to me as long as Bob goes down. Or I can use a measure of restraint and only use single target abilities to not compound Nancy's difficulties. Or I can curse myself for over committing to AoE capabilities in all of my powers and just walk away. Can I on the fly exclude Nancy from my harmful abilities or better yet form a temporary alliance so we do not harm each other?

I suggest that Rank & Notoriety be eliminated completely or restricted to MWM's nebulous form of non-combat PvP or the arena or whatever special game play modes they have planned.

Also, to the League subject. If all of the activity happens at the Super Team level, individual players can't fluidly join a League without first abandoning their current Super Team to join another that is in the desired League. If you can remain in your current ST and have your ST join your desired League, how is MWM going to adjudicate which individual(s) in a ST have the authority to do so? If anyone can make that decision, how does that functionally differentiate itself from simply being in a team (you can leave at any point for any reason)?

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Just to clear things up.

Just to clear things up.

You lose all Notoriety when defeated (it is the "bounty"
On your head for constantly defeating players).

Rank reduces over time over consecutive losses.

Achievements: the loss of achievements are equivalement to some of those in PvE as well as PvP.

PvE achievements may be "stealth" 5 missions in a row, then 10, 15, and so on (purely an example here).

If you fail a stealth mission at 14, even if you've earned badges for 5 and 10, to get the 15 in a row, you need to stealth 15 missions, not 1.

For PvP related achievements it is the same.

The penalty for defeat in either case is time. We don't have xp debt, xp loss, cumulative debuffs, or corpse runs.

Some achievments may not reset for either pvp or pve (it depends on the type of Challenge).

The example of Bob and Nancy contains decisions that would need to be made in any open world encounter. A temporary alliance would be had in the form of a Group Invite .

As for how players will decide who can invite another ST into their ST or ST's League - that comes down to the players' who form the ST and the permissions they set as in Who can Invite to ST League and in League circumstances Who Can Accept.

The functional diffierence when it comes to Leagues is size. inviting a new ST into a League can have a large impact as in it could involve large numbers of player accounts (and characters per account).


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Impulse King
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 33 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 18:55
Thank you Tannim222! Yet more

Thank you Tannim222! Yet more cool info revealed! I'm going to revert to CoH terms for my next question. Say Adam and Bob are teamed together when they encounter Eve and Nancy who are their own team. Conflict ensues for reasons. All pretty straightforward so far. What if Bob and Nancy, although teamed separately for the moment, are actually in the same Super Group? How is that handled on an AOE and single target basis?

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
That Nancy/Bob solution only

That Nancy/Bob solution only works if Nancy isn't currently in a team/group. If you are in the middle of a heated battle, are you really going to take the time to look at some group/team invite from some random player and just accept it? This could be a legitimate griefing tactic too. Have a friend on an alt character that is outside of your League hang back and wait until a character is under siege then throw them a group invite. If they accept they are excluded from anyone else helping them. If they refuse they are wasting time on doing that instead of defending themselves. If they ignore it, presumably there is an open team/group invite on the screen that excludes anyone else from sending an invite.

One thing that needs explaining is why rank matters to the player. What is the benefit to increasing one's rank? Why should people care about PvP Achievements? Yes, I am trying to bait you into an answer here.

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Planet10 wrote:
Planet10 wrote:

What is the benefit to increasing one's rank?

I would guess it would be equivalent to PvE faction rep in terms of "inherent rewards".

Quote:

Why should people care about PvP Achievements?

For the exact same reason people should care about PvE achievements, something to strive for.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Impulse King wrote:
Impulse King wrote:

Thank you Tannim222! Yet more cool info revealed! I'm going to revert to CoH terms for my next question. Say Adam and Bob are teamed together when they encounter Eve and Nancy who are their own team. Conflict ensues for reasons. All pretty straightforward so far. What if Bob and Nancy, although teamed separately for the moment, are actually in the same Super Group? How is that handled on an AOE and single target basis?

Essentially, there is no conflict. Namcy and Bob are off limits to each other - they are "friendly to one another", Adam and Eve are friendly to each other and Nancy and Bon by being friendly within their group and due to their group mates being friendly with each other.

As for time spent accepting / declinging group
Invites - you csn set to auto-accept/decline have a the accept window moved off and resized to a part of your screen that is not typically in your way.

The invite scenario is not much of a grief - only if used to bait a person / group into attacking the "lone"person.

It can be possible to prevent the invite from going out to a person who is already in combat that would cause their hostile / friendly flag to change to their opponents.

Rank matters for determinging who is "worth" your time eliminating or earning "pvp xp" which can be used for obtaining rewards.

Particualrly for achievments which may rewuire their own "xp meter" to advance. Or if we provide an alternative method of character advancement.

At one point, PvP Rank was going to be a Global Rank to provide quick determination of who is generally successful at PvP even if they start new characters. Tied with Rank-based "xp", you will want to seek out players of your own or better rank rather than going after lower-level-lower-ranked players. It helps to encourage "play at your level".

For those foing after easier wins, they build Notoriety faster - making them more of a target - a deterent system.

Together they encourage more "fair play" in open world pvp instead of a free-for all gank-fest.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Keep rewards (and how you

Keep rewards (and how you generate those rewards) confined to their special arena or play mode scenarios. The moment you introduce something to be gained or lost (a badge, a perk, a costume) it becomes an artificial reason to compete.

The players are supposed to have the agency. This overlay of a ranking & achievement system automatically places a target on everyone's head. Players need to develop a 'why' for participating in PvP. The moment my character enters the PvP phase there is a reason for others to defeat me and I have done nothing other that show up on their radar. The inherent ranking & achievement system created a 'why' without any input or judgement from me. Where is the agency in that? The only decision I can make is to go PvP active or not. The only reason to PvP is to rank up or boost your achievement high mark.

How does that weave into the super hero/villain narrative?
Where is there some sort of comic book precedent for supers just wailing on each other for no apparent reason other than ranking up (when it is in the backdrop of a city)?
Does the lore for CoT have anything to contribute to this version of the game world (since there is no PvE difference between the phases)?

It feels like pvp is being tacked on to a pve game. There is no breakpoint where a character's actions shift them from neutral to good or neutral to evil. Everything is left up to the player to determine if they are heroic or villainous. I can murder a thousand babies and think that I am a hero for whatever reason. Everyone else will gaze upon my bloodbath and make a judgement, but I won't care because I think I am a hero. Yeah, some NPCs won't like it, so what. Some other NPCs wouldn't like it if I didn't kill those 1000 babies.

Will players, ST, or Leagues be able to align themselves with any of the NPC factions (Five Dragons, BPIT, etc)?
Now that would give you a reason to fight someone. Plus it lets you fold Role Play into it a bit. Let's say the Five Dragons are performing some ritual as a server event. Bob and his ST are aligned with them so he goes out to the ritual site to help out. Now he is fighting off all of the NPCs and opposing players (they just don't understand). The PvE event gave us a reason to PvP. Then later on down the line the Regency is doing some whacked out arcane thing and you spot Bob out there. Hmm, he helped out those Five Dragons last time, he's probably up to his old tricks again, time to PvP. Then a week later you spot Bob on the street minding his own business. Remember that time he helped summon that dragon and this last time he helped unleash wild magic on the populace? He needs to pay for it. Right here. Right now.

It might require some tracking on the server side of things so you can have something like a Bat Profile on all of the players you have fought against. Something that says you have defeated Bob x times and been defeated y times. Plus you can look at your history. During the Five Dragons ritual of spring 2019 you defeated Bob x times and were defeated y times. Also allow a player profile notes section where you can remind yourself 'hey, paste this guy if you ever see him out in the open'.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 2 sec ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Just to clear things up.
You lose all Notoriety when defeated (it is the "bounty"
On your head for constantly defeating players).

Okay now... before we go any further, I want to make sure it is clear here that notoriety in this context is not the same as the CoX term notoriety.

I like your use of notoriety here far better than I like your use of kill streaks.

Here's what I mean:

In CoT, PvP players will have a stat called notoriety. Notoriety is gained by defeating other players. The notoriety you gain is a function of two things.

The notoriety of victim and the difference in power level between the two combatants. The notoriety you gain should be the notoriety of your victim multiplied by a factor according to the power level between the two of you. Only half of a character's current notoriety should ever be at risk. So if you both are in the same power bracket, the notoriety reward is 1.0 times half the notoriety of the victim. And the victim loses 1.0 times half of their notoriety. If you kill a character who is in a bracket above yours, the reward is (1+(difference in levels)/10) times half the notoriety of the victim, or 3/4 their notoriety for a 5 level difference. And the victim would lose the same amount of notoriety. And there should always be a miniminum amount of notoriety awarded based on the level difference, just in case you try to attack someone with little or not notoriety of their own.

The kill streak dynamic is one ruled by fear of losing, with very little reward for winning. However, this notoriety vampirism I suggest would be a far more dynamic system that would encourage players to interact with each other as notoriety swings wildly up and down so fast that no one would really exhibit the same fear of losing as they would with a long kill streak. The good players would naturally rise to the top as their notoriety would climb like the stock market, with periodic ups and downs but a definite trend. All the while, less notorious players will see the rewards outweigh the losses for engaging other players.

While I still despise the free-for-all, battle-royale every character for herself model that MWM plans for the PvP system, I would despise it less if they used a notoriety vampirism model such as the one suggested here rather than the kill streak model they are currently planning.

Edit: This still also would not solve kill credit issues with the system. Who gets credit for the kill? Is it proportionate to damage done or is it rewarded to the final blow? Is it rewarded equally to all who get in a set amount of damage? How would healers and support classes get credit in PvP?


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Rank matters for determinging who is "worth" your time eliminating or earning "pvp xp" which can be used for obtaining rewards.
Particualrly for achievments which may rewuire their own "xp meter" to advance. Or if we provide an alternative method of character advancement.
At one point, PvP Rank was going to be a Global Rank to provide quick determination of who is generally successful at PvP even if they start new characters. Tied with Rank-based "xp", you will want to seek out players of your own or better rank rather than going after lower-level-lower-ranked players. It helps to encourage "play at your level".
For those going after easier wins, they build Notoriety faster - making them more of a target - a deterent system.
Together they encourage more "fair play" in open world pvp instead of a free-for all gank-fest.

I think MWM needs to decide if they are creating a Supers game or a PvP game.

You are trying to create some stratified combat tier mechanic to incentivize players to only want to play against other like minded people. It does not preclude that those players won't run around ganking everything that moves. People who don't want to be a lamb dragged out to slaughter will never enter the PvP phase. You are essentially creating a phase that only a few will enter. Why waste development time like that? Give people that play the PvE game a real reason to go PvP active.

Your version of PvP sounds like some sort of E-Sport 'competitive play' game where you match wits and abilities to see who can rise to the top. Will it be YOU who wins this season of City of Titans 2020 West Coast Regional Tournament?

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 2 sec ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Planet10 wrote:
Planet10 wrote:

I think MWM needs to decide if they are creating a Supers game or a PvP game.
You are trying to create some stratified combat tier mechanic to incentivize players to only want to play against other like minded people. It does not preclude that those players won't run around ganking everything that moves. People who don't want to be a lamb dragged out to slaughter will never enter the PvP phase. You are essentially creating a phase that only a few will enter. Why waste development time like that? Give people that play the PvE game a real reason to go PvP active.
Your version of PvP sounds like some sort of E-Sport 'competitive play' game where you match wits and abilities to see who can rise to the top. Will it be YOU who wins this season of City of Titans 2020 West Coast Regional Tournament?

I could not agree more, Planet10.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

I could not agree more, Planet10.

Super speed high five

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Again he hero / villain

Again he hero / villain marrative is not how our alignment system or game works even for PvE, and thus is not how it works for PvP.

This isn't a player-faction-based game. Plain and simple.
Since it isn't that, there can and should be constructs for pvp even in an open world.

Multiple mmo pvp players in many mmos and devs have stated that pvp should provide some form of reward. I don't think that is ever going away. In a game where can't loot your defeated opponent, having zero reward disincentives pvp altogether.

I've spent hundreds of hours of research, discussions, and preprosiction into this pvp to work within the game at large. We eve include pvp metrics into our pve design to make mechanics work as seemlesy as possible.

Everything you experience in pve in some way will have an equivalant experience in pvp.

There are achievements in pve, you will see them
In pvp.

We can never incrmtive pvp to the point players who don't enjoy it will enter it.

What we can do is keep the barrier of entry low.
Seemless mechanics helps that. Brakceted levels of posible contact does that. Bounty systems does that.
Giving a base reason to engage pvp with its own method of possible advancement (where pve will have one as well) and achievements does that.

Later, we can include more "modes" of pvp as I've stated before.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 59 min 33 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Again he hero / villain marrative is not how our alignment system or game works even for PvE, and thus is not how it works for PvP.
This isn't a player-faction-based game. Plain and simple.
Since it isn't that, there can and should be constructs for pvp even in an open world.
Multiple mmo pvp players in many mmos and devs have stated that pvp should provide some form of reward. I don't think that is ever going away. In a game where can't loot your defeated opponent, having zero reward disincentives pvp altogether.
I've spent hundreds of hours of research, discussions, and preprosiction into this pvp to work within the game at large. We eve include pvp metrics into our pve design to make mechanics work as seemlesy as possible.
Everything you experience in pve in some way will have an equivalant experience in pvp.
There are achievements in pve, you will see them
In pvp.
We can never incrmtive pvp to the point players who don't enjoy it will enter it.
What we can do is keep the barrier of entry low.
Seemless mechanics helps that. Brakceted levels of posible contact does that. Bounty systems does that.
Giving a base reason to engage pvp with its own method of possible advancement (where pve will have one as well) and achievements does that.
Later, we can include more "modes" of pvp as I've stated before.

I have to say as an incredibly casual (read, occasional) PvPer, I really like this. I have been following and understand the various arguments, but I keep coming back to finding myself glad that since MWM has to launch with one overall PvP approach due to limited development time that this is the one they've chosen. They have stated repeatedly that they plan to be a PvE game that allows for PvP. Their goal is not to incent players to play or even to try PvP.

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

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Let me paint a picture of one

Let me paint a picture of one of my favorite PvP experiences.

It happened in vanilla WoW. I was alliance and played on Kil'Jaeden (pvp server). The moment you stepped outside of the low level starter zones you became pvp active. In that version of WoW there were only two continents and there were only three ways to travel between them. You could hope that you had your hearthstone set somewhere on the other continent. Or you could wrangle a Warlock and two other friends on the other continent to summon you. Or you could take one of two boats (or airships, but that was harder to do as Alliance) that made regular voyages between the continents.

From time to time some Horde players would take ownership of the boats. If any Alliance got on board, they died. They asserted control over a resource and we had two choices, acquiesce or fight back. We rallied and fought back. Sure it diverted us from what we originally wanted to do, but it was fun. Emergent conflict, non-standard terrain, great fun. Yeah we got a little pissed off. There was some chatter, but one thing stuck "those boatcamping jerks". On a PvP server you accept that there will be times where you might not end up doing what you expected. You answer the call or you don't. Those Horde players kept up the effort. It wasn't 24/7, but it happened frequently. They even created a guild so their tag read (or something shorter). As an adversary you had to appreciate the effort and the commitment they put into it. I had lots of fun helping a raid attack them from both ports. I died a bunch. I killed a bunch. But that didn't matter too much to me, scattering them and freeing up the boats was the enjoyment I got out of it.

The emergent conflict is what made all of my open world pvp encounters fun. I didn't always receive backup, but those were also situations where I had to learn how to sneak away. It wasn't some sort of queued instance where there were an even number of characters with a prize at the end for the side that objectively performed 'better'. I didn't get to see the exact composition of the opposing force. I had to use my eyes to see what was being brought to bear, find a weakness or opportunity then strike back.

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Framing it slightly

Framing it slightly differently, based on a character leveled in the PvE phase, why do I want to defeat other players? This Idiocracy circular "it has electrolytes" response isn't answering the question.

Tannim222 wrote:

Again he hero / villain narrative is not how our alignment system or game works even for PvE, and thus is not how it works for PvP.
This isn't a player-faction-based game. Plain and simple.

Everything you experience in pve in some way will have an equivalant experience in pvp.

I need to clarify my statements.

Planet10 wrote:

The only decision I can make is to go PvP active or not. The only reason to PvP is to rank up or boost your achievement high mark.
How does that weave into the super hero/villain narrative?

Presumably we will be playing a Supers game in Titan City. There is a lot of lore. You will be immersed in your own character story, building trust, establishing a pattern of behavior and strengthening your arc. At some point my character will have some sort of spiritual awakening (catastrophic meltdown or whatever you imagine) in the form of shifting your secondary powerset (Specialization). And that all happens because there is a tried & true precedent in comic book lore where a character has some significant shift.

But then there is this whole other shadow universe called the PvP phase where you can do everything that you could do in the real world, but now you can attack other players. There is no real reason to attack anyone else in this shadow universe other than they have some secret ranking up juice inside them and apparently I want it. I should want it all. I can squeeze more rank juice out of some players as compared to others. I guess having more rank juice is better than having less. If the real world is so steeped in lore and significance, why is there this shadow universe (PvP phase) where I suddenly want to smoke everything moving? Is there some comic book precedent where supers just go insane and attack everyone not on their side? What is MWM's explanation for all of a sudden being able to defeat other players?

Essentially what I am saying is that you are tacking on a pvp phase just to say that the game has pvp. You are spending development time on this just to say there is pvp when you know close to no one will go there, especially if you are creating specialized environments and tournaments or events for pvp in the future. The current iteration of pvp ranks and achievements have no place in the real/normal PvE version of the game. If that is the only difference between the phases there is no reason to have the two phases.

You keep saying that everything available in the PvE phase is available in the PvP phase. The bonus to the PvP phase is that you have access to ranks and achievements. You say that there are PvE badges and achievements for the PvE phase. You say that there are PvP badges and achievements for the PvP phase. If there are any differences in badges or achievements between phases you know people are going to cry foul. If there is any costume, title, or benny of any type available in the PvP phase that isn't also available in the PvE phase people are going to label you as incompetent and bad at what you do comma how dare you betray your playerbase exclamation point one one one one.

I believe that pvp must exist in a supers game. If all you did was run around pounding on NPCs it would get boring after a while, especially if boss fights ratchet up the cheating (because we all know bosses are special cased). I contend that just slapping on pvp without giving it any weight is equivalent to developing two separate games. And you will have to balance powers for how they behave in PvP. Then I am going to get pissed that some pvp decision forced a revamp on my powerset. Or you make the changes only affect the PvP phase, then you are truly developing two games in parallel. So if you want to sign up for that, good luck.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Eventually, we can hope to

Eventually, we can hope to include similar point / resource control in the open world.

That said, this type of play can emerge without the requirement of player factions that are inhereted from the game end of design, but result from player-made factions.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Multiple mmo pvp players in many mmos and devs have stated that pvp should provide some form of reward. I don't think that is ever going away. In a game where can't loot your defeated opponent, having zero reward disincentives pvp altogether.
I've spent hundreds of hours of research, discussions, and preprosiction into this pvp to work within the game at large. We eve include pvp metrics into our pve design to make mechanics work as seemlesy as possible.

As a player who has pvp'd in the past, I disagree with your assertion that there must be some carrot at the end of the pvp stick. Reference my above post about one of my favorite pvp experiences.
What is the purpose of pvp ranks, notoriety and the rest of the plan when tacked onto the PvE portion of the game? Is the purpose of pvp to build ranks, get notoriety and assert dominance?

Look at it from a pseudo role play scenario. I build my character, establish my position in the city and build a reputation. Then all of a sudden I am defeating other players who don't think like me (they aren't in my League). I have no real reason to defeat them, but I rank up when I do. There are these other opaque players in the PvE phase that do not help me rank up. My other obligations in the city do not impact my rank. I sure hope some of those opaque players come over to this side so I can milk them for their rank at some point.

What I am trying to tell you is that this version of the PvP phase is empty on a couple levels. The only reason to pvp is to build rank. The only thing you do in the pvp phase is build rank. The only thing you care about in the pvp phase is building rank. There is no connection between the pve & pvp phases. In the PvE phase everyone is benign. In the PvP phase everyone who is not in my League is an enemy. Why? There can't be truces or understandings between Leagues, otherwise they would be aligned in a League. I don't have to be hostile to everyone. Managing Leagues is going to be a huge pain. The only reason for the existence of Leagues is to define who you kill and who you help. There is no bargaining, no ideological differences, nothing tied to lore or role play. It is simply building a mutually supportive group of people to beat up on everyone else.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Planet10 wrote:
Planet10 wrote:

I think MWM needs to decide if they are creating a Supers game or a PvP game.

They did a long time ago.
The minimalistic way they are including PvP in the game is evident of that even if they hadn't made it clear that their focus was on the PvE aspect early in development.

That's not an accusation by the way. Few MMO's have a large PvP player base so minimal development makes sense. My feelings on the type of PvP they are developing should be known by now. I really hoped they would scrap their choice to focus on free-for-all lawless wild west PvP and wait until after release to develop a smaller more constrained type of PvP to build upon.
But when Tannim said 'What typically happens in open world pvp where a group becomes dominant is that players tend to band together to oppose the dominant group. Since the dominant group in this system will have a bounty on them, they will be worth-while targets to take on. ' I now see that we will likely never agree. I could write pages on why I disagree with that statement alone.

I must say I am surprised the negative reception that MWM's PvP plans have been getting do not give them pause to reconsider. This leads me to believe there are other development factors that the devs are not discussing in relation to their PvP design choices.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
In your above example, there

In your above example, there was a carrot - the ship as a resource.

Ranks and Notoriety exist to provide ease of entry for players entering into pvp.

Ranks is also being used to provide alternative method of advancement. You can literally level up your character through pvp without ever having to pve.

You csn enter the pvp phase, never enter a mission, only engage in pvp, and still advance your character.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 6 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

I must say I am surprised the negative reception that MWM's PvP plans have been getting do not give them pause to reconsider. This leads me to believe there are other development factors that the devs are not discussing in relation to their PvP design choices.

Just going to point out: they are getting a negative reaction from only a HANDFUL of people. Personally - I don't mind the system they are laying out at all. Besides, PvP isn't the main focus of the game - it's something they are going to build on as the game progresses.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Many of the supporters are

Many of the supporters are self proclaimed casual or rare PvP'ers. I am more inclined to consider those who will use PvP more in regards to what makes good PvP.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
It would be a much larger

It would be a much larger mistake to scrap all pvp design and wait until later. CoH did that and pvp never worked. Even when players made it work for themselves, it was still a disfunctional system.

No mmo has done well when it attempts to tack on systems the base systems were not meant to work for.

We also, from the beginning have stated pvp will be available at launch and we have done our best to maintain our word when given in public.

The goal then is to work within the existing system, provide an experience that lowers the barrier of entry, while at the same time, can also be rewarding to play .

If not, chances are it will never happen and we went back on out word.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 6 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Many of the supporters are self proclaimed casual or rare PvP'ers. I am more inclined to consider those who will use PvP more in regards to what makes good PvP.

If the old game is any indication, the potential "hardcore" PvPers will be a TINY minority of the playerbase. The "casuals" will likely outnumber them by a great deal. Considering the casual nature of the game they are designing, and the fact that PvP is NOT the focus, I think having a low barrier of entry - i.e. "catering to the casuals" - might be the best route to go - at least for launch. They can add to/expand on the PvP system as CoT grows and as they have more data/experience in that area of the game.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

It would be a much larger mistake to scrap all pvp design and wait until later. CoH did that and pvp never worked. Even when players made it work for themselves, it was still a disfunctional system.

No mmo has done well when it attempts to tack on systems the base systems were not meant to work for.

I said nothing about scrapping all designs for PvP, just the lawless open world design. It reeks of the failed PvP zones in CoH, including the bounty system to me.

Tannim222 wrote:

We also, from the beginning have stated pvp will be available at launch and we have done our best to maintain our word when given in public.

You have changed things through the years when it was for the betterment of the game. If you agreed with me this would be no different.
This statement also makes me think I was right that there is a development reason behind the initial PvP design, in this case you hope to have PvP at release and are willing to release an easier to develop version initially.

Tannim222 wrote:

If not, chances are it will never happen and we went back on out word.

This makes no logical sense to me at all. You have already stated many times that you intend to further develop PvP after release so my suggestion would just be a shifting of focus. Why would postponing PvP development until after release suddenly mean it is forgotten?

I am not trying to argue with you Tannim. I had tried to initiate a dialogue (at your request), but did not get a response. I was left to assume you had no interest in discussing alternate views. As I said, I don't see any way we can agree on this issue because we fundamentally believe different things at the core.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Interdictor wrote:
Interdictor wrote:

If the old game is any indication, the potential "hardcore" PvPers will be a TINY minority of the playerbase. The "casuals" will likely outnumber them by a great deal. Considering the casual nature of the game they are designing, and the fact that PvP is NOT the focus, I think having a low barrier of entry - i.e. "catering to the casuals" - might be the best route to go - at least for launch. They can add to/expand on the PvP system as CoT grows and as they have more data/experience in that area of the game.

Casuals will always outnumber the hardcore in both PvP and PvE. It does not change the fact that hardcore players (by their hardcore nature) understand more than casuals.
There are other ways to have a low barrier of entry than open world PvP and open world PvP in no way caters to casuals.
Starting with small highly defined PvP and gradually building up to vast open world PvP gives the devs a chance to not only fix the inevitable issues easier but see what players want for future development.

You are free to think the devs are doing the right thing in regards to PvP but I do not.

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 59 min 33 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
I agree with Interdictor, and

I agree with Interdictor, and if, as has been said, casuals will always outnumber the hardcore in PvP and PvE, then since the game is intentionally designed to cater to casuals, it doesn't matter nearly as much how much the hardcore know about PvP as it does how much the Devs understand about what casuals want. And as a casual, I think on that level they've done pretty well for a start.

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

Scott Jackson
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/20/2013 - 20:13
Again I must disclose that I

Again I must disclose that I am unlikely to do direct PvP, but I want a full-featured game that pleases the most people and encourages players to try content that they might otherwise avoid due to bad experiences in past games.

Planet10, and any other PvP advocates who wish to respond...
If you think it's of value to the discussion, could you give more examples (and/or confirm items on my list) of possible open world PvP scenarios that you would find compelling? Whatever comes to mind - could be emergent possibilities (players just suddenly decide to compete for control of the University's crafting hall) or more guided events as I've described below, though I think we can still pack a lot of emergent gameplay into such events by allowing multiple ways to advance/win. I found the WoW travel-control scenario interesting...I think the open world will feel much more alive (both phases) in CoT with "controllable resources" and events linked to them, as it's natural for various forces to compete for exclusive access/travel to special regions.

Would you be able to create more of these scenarios or more compelling versions of them, if you could change (even just temporarily) something about the overarching open-world PvP mechanics that Tannim has described (rank and notoriety, player-defined team/ST/SL factions, no server-defined factions)?

1. "Meltdown" regularly scheduled event for PvP and PvE:
Server triggers "Meltdown" at the nuclear reactor in Zone 7. PvE and PvP phases experience this event simultaneously. Depending on the number of player participants, multiple instances of the zone may be created. Three PvE factions have objectives in this event, you can chose to observe, sign up to aid one of them for part or all of the event (can betray), or act for your own goals (making no promise to aid). The "Engineers" are trying to restore containment and can be aided by various tasks to repair/cool glowies and protect them from threats as they work. The "Blob" are drawn to points where radiation is escaping so as to feed and grow, and can be aided by protecting them and opening cracks (glowies) in the reactor containment pipework and shell. The "Tek Freedom" are trying to obtain reactor technology for their own purposes and can be aided by protecting them as they move valuable items back to their trucks and sneak to the control room to download data. The event has a status window to display which factions are making progress on their goals, and some set of goals being met will end the event, or time will expire and an outside force will restore normalcy. Player actions can lead to xp, drops, currency, reputation with one of the three NPC factions, and 3-axis alignment shifts.

In the PvE phase, players cannot target each other, but indirectly PvP by taking action on glowies and NPCs, hoping to shift the balance of power and "win" the event.
In the PvP phase, players can target each other based on the team/ST/SL rules. Shift the balance of power through actions on glowies and NPCs, and by also defeating players who have signed up to assist one of the three NPC factions. Notoriety and rank would be affected by direct PvP actions only.

2. "Zone Of Control" player-triggered event:
This is a king-of-the-hill style scenario. Certain zones, sub-regions, or even a single building (e.g. bank) will have a prominent feature that represents its core function. A player/team/ST/SL can initiate some kind of action to take ownership of that core or "hill" from its current NPC owners, and thereby offer support/defense to that NPC faction or ally with their NPC opponent. For example, players could approach a genetics company and offer to defend its lab from attackers, or attack the lab on behalf of a competitor. The event may give players options for how long they wish the event to last, the number and rank of NPC defenders/attackers to spawn, etc. Their event is then announced on the phase's event channel (players can subscribe), so that more players may arrive to help or oppose them. Control points "charge up" with rewards as they are held for a longer time - or against a larger, higher ranked force of opposing players and NPCs. When a control point changes hands or the event ends, rewards are distributed to the players who previously had control. For example, the players in control of a bank vault are either being paid to defend it, or are looting it. Players who attempt to control parts of a crashed alien ship are either stealing its tech or being offered valuable items by the aliens who have asked for help.

In the PvE phase, players cannot target each other, but indirectly PvP by taking control points away from enemy NPCs, activating glowies that spawn NPCs of their preferred faction, triggering automated defenses or offensive bombardments, and by guarding or defeating NPCs that are moving to take control points.
In the PvP phase, players can target each other based on the team/ST/SL rules, and thus try to directly combat players who are helping the opposite NPC faction. All other methods of getting and holding control points still apply. Notoriety and rank would be affected by direct PvP actions only.

3.) Whatever else we can dream up.

None of these scenarios dramatically alter the overarching open-world PvP mechanics or 3-axis alignment system, but could temporarily alter the "who can I target/harm with my powers" rules by establishing obvious NPC factions which a player or team can ally. That temporary alliance to an NPC faction for the duration of the event could then supercede the ST/SL rules. These scenarios are probably not present when the game is released, but it's important to ensure that all game systems (overarching PvP mechanics, PvE mechanics, reward system, 3-axis, etc) are designed to enable future development of desired scenarios.

Thus, my real questions are...
Do we think the overarching PvP mechanics (as currently designed) would enable or hinder the development of interesting scenarios? In what ways?
Do the overarching + new mechanics support a player who tries to participate in a scenario, or disrupt their enjoyment? In what ways? Is motivation adequately addressed (rank and notoriety are no longer the sole motivation)?
If such scenarios are added to CoT, would they complete the spectrum for PvP gameplay between the extremes of open world semi-free-for-all and structured arena-style team matches, cage matches and duels? If not, what's missing? It seems unlikely that all modes of PvP will appeal equally to a given player, and trying to design as such would be impossible... What can be done to ensure that players can enjoy the PvP modes they prefer? Do we need a flag within the PvP phase, to disable "open-world-free-for-all" for the PvPers who prefer to only take a side as part of structured scenarios, arena matches, and duels?

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 33 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
I don't see why people are

I don't see why people are arguing about this. I look at it and see that MWM is aware that a segment of their community wants PvP. They've lowered the barriers to PvP about as far as they can and even planned ways for PvP players to progress through PvP. Meanwhile, the PvPers also get an exclusive copy of the Whole World, which they never have to leave, since all of the PvE content is still there. The only thing missing from the PvP game is the population of PvEers.

What more could they want?

Be Well!
Fireheart

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
The reason I didn't engage

The reason I didn't engage some of the suggestions were due to factors which either required scrapping current design or not within the current scope of design.

Launching with pvp is going to happen. One of the early suggestions was to have complete ffa (free-for-all) pvp. Yup, level 30s taking out level 1s with zero repurcussions (there were people advocating for that much open pvp).

Our AI designer has stated m from the onset of design that a powers affect npcs the same way they do pcs - because the AI is a neural-networked emergent AI. It learns what it is told to learn. And seeing how players combat other players is a very handy tool to teach it.

Now we don't have time to devote to creating pvp modes, ensuring a player-map maker will work for pvp, or create specific pvp maps. We don't even plan to include ST base pvp because of the hinderences associated with getting the basic design implemented.

We we don't launch with pvp, we lose a valuable to for data collection and AI design.

If we don't have pvp performance evaluated, we can't improve it properly to provide proper pvp events and modes.

Remember, we are striving to include pvp metrics in our core design, - without pvp data, those metrics won't varry mich meaning for refining design. We will solely rely in pve metrics, which we don't want to happen.

Hence, the only way we get to launch with pvp is to provide its own phase. This also opens up opportunities in the future such as pvevp, player strong holds, and open-world pvp events.

With an open world pvp, we also don't have player-alignment-factions due to the tri-axis alignment system.

The scope of seisgn then is to use the open world map, with out game-definfing-player-factions, with reduced barriers of entry and ensure fairer fights (no level 30s ganging level 1s).

If you have ideas that can work within that scope that work with the basic coding of how the game works (which is what I have attempted to achieve), I am all ears (or eyes in this case since it is text).


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Scott Jackson
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/20/2013 - 20:13
Personally, I think the

Personally, I think the framework is fine for release day, but will have very limited participation since it is only one (and possibly the least popular) of the PvP modes from a historical CoH playerbase perspective. Perhaps CoT can attract a significant number of new PvP players at release who immediately find it appealing? Seems a bit unlikely, but maybe. Using what could be very limited participation to guide AI design and the design of future PvP events/modes? I'd be cautious of that data, though I bet MWM is too.

Tannim has pretty clearly set forth the design and plan for release as it stands; I'd like to help build solid proposals that do not eliminate one mode in the process of adding another.

Players who want to PvP in the open world in a semi-free-for-all mode, guided by their own alliances at the moment and the rank/notoriety system will enjoy what's been described - and there should be a place for them in CoT.

Those who want structured open world PvP are either out of luck, or must come up with something (maybe pieces of post 157?) that can work alongside the above. From what others here have described, this mode aims to provide motivations to PvP that are rooted in game lore. It would do so by setting up opposing, temporary, game-defined factions of players. One option is to let players align with one of several NPC factions within a zone event or mission arc. Another option is to let players choose some resource in the open world, define their own competing factions and objectives, and the game would enforce their rules for the duration of the event. Neither would rely on the 3-axis system to define factions. Regardless, even with a working proposal approved today, we probably have to accept it as a post-release addition.

Those who want highly structured (custom maps / arena team matches / cage match / open world duel) PvP will have to wait...unless some piece of this is scheduled for day 1? However, these are already on the list as future game features.

Those who want indirect PvP (that's me!) will have to wait. However, it is already on the list as future game feature (in some undisclosed form). I think these plans might benefit from any structured open world PvP ideas.

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

In your above example, there was a carrot - the ship as a resource.
Ranks and Notoriety exist to provide ease of entry for players entering into pvp.
Ranks is also being used to provide alternative method of advancement. You can literally level up your character through pvp without ever having to pve.
You can enter the pvp phase, never enter a mission, only engage in pvp, and still advance your character.

Tannim222 wrote:

In a game where can't loot your defeated opponent, having zero reward disincentives pvp altogether.

Fine, if you want to play it that way. My carrot was the warm feeling in my heart knowing that we freed the ship from the tyranny of Horde control. I technically earned some honor, but I didn't care about that and never cared about generating honor. I decided that control of the boat was my reward. PvP along with help from other people facilitated the acquisition of that reward. The game system did not setup control of the boat as a reward. Status quo was a situation where my faction had control of the boat. That default state was thrown off balance when the Horde took control. If the Alliance did nothing, we would eventually regain control of the boat (returning to status quo) when the Horde left the scene. So if we PvP'd or did nothing, the game would return to the default state and by your definition, we would get the carrot/reward. So in effect there were zero rewards, but I was still motivated to participate in PvP.

I would like a little clarification on what you mean by "Ranks". You say that you can literally level up your character through pvp and you also say that Rank reduces over time due to consecutive losses. I am confused by these two conflicting statements (since the only penalty for defeat is lost time).

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
I understood what you meant

I understood what you meant about the boats. The same can occur in games without game-directed-player-factions. A group of players may decide to hold the tram entrance as their own "territory" in the game. Anyone not friendly to them gets jumped. In responce, a group of players ban together to push them out of the area. If no one does anything, when the first group eventually leaves - the area would be free for use anyway. But the fun is had when players decide to work with others to push that first group away.

Ranks are not the same as levels. They are meant to be more fluid, and an indicator of your relative success withi the open-world pvp. The original concept was that this was meant to be a global rank - so that even on new characters, players would know who generally worthnwatxhing out for )that part needs to be evaluated further).

Over time in pvp through earning achievements you earn a (currency) which can be used to exchange for rewards - it can be made possible to allow one of those rewards to be xp to level up a character. Rank can determine how much it little of the (currency) is obtained each time an action is taken toward an achievement.

A higher rank taking on a lower rank doesn't pay off as much. While taking on someone closer to your rank is worth more, and taking on someone who is higher rank even more. Think "pvp levels" but more fluid.

Now, if not used as a global indicator - ranks could be done away with and instead simply using character levels is possible (sans losing levels of course). It works well with the brackets of possible engagement (you can't touch somone too low or high above your level). As said, the original concept was as a global indicator so that over time, when experienced pvpers made new characters, new pvpers would have an indicator of who to watch out for, and experienced pvpers would know who was more worth their time to bother engaging in combat within their character level.

Even so, set all that aside and look at my above post outlining the basic scope of pvp. What would make open world, player-factionless pvp without specific pvp events or modes worth while? This should also work existing systems for character progression (like classes, having levels, slotted augments, etc...) and keep the barriers of entry low.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

If you have ideas that can work within that scope that work with the basic coding of how the game works (which is what I have attempted to achieve), I am all ears (or eyes in this case since it is text).

I don't have any ideas that will work within the scope of building on an open world PvP design. I disagree with that design choice so any suggestion I might have would include not having open world PvP, at least not as the core that gets built upon and absolutely not as the first PvP experience for players.
Arenas, queues, small instanced areas with clearly defined 'rules of engagement' and the like instead of open world lawless PvP.
It is pointless to discuss because we don't agree on the issues of open world PvP.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 2 sec ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
The best PvP I have seen in

The best PvP I have seen in an MMORPG to date has been in Archeage. This is because it is also the best example of emergent behavior in an MMORPG. There are no grand quests driving player versus player behavior and conflict (except the Halcyona war). It is the economy and resources that drive player behavior and grand alliances and guarded caravans, etc. are spring up naturally based upon what the players want to accomplish. Even the Pirate faction is a bunch of players who turned outlaw and banded together to get rich off the spoils of other players.
Albion Online shows to be a lot like that as well.

But as I understand how PvP will work in CoT, there will be no incentive for emergent behavior. Sure Tannim can say that players could take over some territory as their own. But where is the incentive for other players to fight them for it and lose their kill streaks in the process? There isn't any.

Does anyone remember Warhammer Online? In it, there were a couple open world areas where one side was pitted against the other side with no objectives other than killing the other players. Those areas were boring stalemates as the two sides would stare at each other across a no man's zone lobbing ranged attacks at each other and trying to pick off people who got too close or tried to sneak around the sides. But other areas with flags needed capturing, resources to claim and castles to conquer... those zones were fun.

If MWM wants emergent behavior out of their PvP players; if they want self-organising player social constructs, they need to give the players grander desires than just killing other players. The PvE elements could contribute to this, but as long as players can just swap over to the PvE phase to conclude their PvE requirements without the interference of other PvP players, they will do so. Especially when they have kill streaks to protect. No, controlling anything, whether it is territory or a resource will be useless as a driver of emergent behavior as long as there is another phase players can swap to to circumvent it; which I guess is exactly the emergent behavior it will drive.

The ideas put forth by Scott Jackson in post #157 are a good start.

Another would be to somehow prevent or at least restrict players from swapping back and forth between the PvP and PvE phases. You could do this with a timer, with a debuff, with a 'only at these locations,' with a 'only at these times,' or with an absolute ban on it. Adding a cash shop item to remove the restriction would be a good idea, too; so long as it could not be used to give an advantage in PvP.

And another would be to award badges for completing PvE content in the PvP phase. For instance, killing Lusca in the PvE phase gives the Devilfish badge, but killing Lusca in the PvP phase gives the Insane Devilfish badge. But this would probably backfire as it would be interpreted by completionists as gating a PvE badge behind PvP content, even if you don't make it part of any PvE achievements.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Scott Jackson wrote:
Scott Jackson wrote:

1. "Meltdown" regularly scheduled event for PvP and PvE:
2. "Zone Of Control" player-triggered event:
Thus, my real questions are...
Do we think the overarching PvP mechanics (as currently designed) would enable or hinder the development of interesting scenarios? In what ways?
Do the overarching + new mechanics support a player who tries to participate in a scenario, or disrupt their enjoyment? In what ways? Is motivation adequately addressed (rank and notoriety are no longer the sole motivation)?

There are not enough concrete facts about the PvP mechanics to say that it is good enough or lacking. The ST/League mechanics need a lot of detail.
What happens if you are in the area where the event is happening and you swap phases? How do you negotiate teams/groups? How do you negotiate declaring for a faction? Can you just be a separate entity in the fracas?
Participation in a scenario is purely scenario driven. A case could be made to host the scenarios as exclusive to the PvP phase.
For some people rank and notoriety will still be a motivation. If they spot someone on a good kill streak or whatever and they are worth a lot of points, they declare for an opposing faction, roll in and just PvP and ignore the other scenario objectives. That is one reason why I do not like the rank/notoriety/achievement system.

Comments for the Meltdown event:

  • Since it is a reoccurring scenario and the power plant has to return to a baseline state, the completion states need to be some sort of recoverable situation. So the "Blob" side could win if they siphon enough then the reactor scrams.
  • When a faction wins or the time runs out (the core faction wins), how do you resolve the fight in either phase? Do the core faction forces just build up to an insurmountable point? What happens if you have a supers team that is built to soak? Do you artificially lay down a whammy that knocks everyone out and sends them to the hospital? That seems kinda unfulfilling.
  • Rotate in/out some competing factions. Vary some of their objectives (maybe two trying to do the same thing). The "Engineers" would be a constant since they own/control the facility.
  • Given the team/ST/League targeting rules, I am not sure how conflicting alliances will resolve themselves. Will allying with one of these factions only occur at the League level? If it happens at the ST level, what takes precedence if a ST in your League aligns with an opposing faction?
  • What happens if the Leagues align with factions that aren't in opposition? The Blobs want more chaos to allow time to open more cracks, so you only really want to fight the Engineers. The Teks want everyone else occupied so they can steal information, so you don't want to engage with the Blobs and you want to stay under the Engineer's radar. By virtue of being in different Leagues you should be able to attack other players, but it doesn't make logical sense to do so. It only makes sense to attack those players to gain rank, build streaks and whatnot. So the objective of the scenario is in conflict with itself under these conditions.
  • Do you need to be aligned with any of the factions to participate? This Power Plant is part of the open world, are you excluded from this area during the event?
  • What happens in the PvP phase if my League is aligned with one of the factions and a opposing League is also aligned to the same faction? Are those characters still active targets?
  • I am unsure about allowing crossover between the PvE & PvP phases. If there is an overwhelming opposing force in the other phase your side is just going to lose that portion of the control mechanism. You can argue that there could be an opposing force, but then your faction is fighting on multiple fronts in two phases. How do you keep an eye on that without having cross phase coordination? There is the potential that you would be required to have a battle commander in each phase calling to have people swap phases. Then at that point you are gaming the phases and not gaming the event.

Comments for the ZoC event:

  • The League concept for the purposes of control gets murky and shouldn't be the defining factor for determining sides. Initially a League should roll in and declare themselves as attackers. Everyone else (not in the attacker's League) that shows up will get defaulted into a defenders League for the duration of the event or until they explicitly leave that defenders League. This avoids overlapping fields of fire and the messiness of cobbling together a League that won't immediately mulch each other.
  • The event should not have a time limit set by the players. Players are exerting control of a resource for whatever reason. I would suggest a minimum of 30min for control. If the resource is still contested after 30min the battle continues until one League controls it uncontested for x minutes.
  • We should fully understand how defeat and respawn mechanics work before setting completion goals. How much time is lost, where do you respawn, etc.
  • The scaling of rewards will need a closer look. I haven't thought that one through yet.

There is more to be said on these topics, but it is late.

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 59 min 33 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Just as a spectator, the

Just as a spectator, the recent conversations that address how to create structured/emergent PvP that works within and/or in conjunction with the intended system are really exciting and, from what Tannim has said, are suggestions that have the potential to actually be implemented.

As the Bloody Nine says, you have to be realistic.

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

Scott Jackson
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/20/2013 - 20:13
Planet10 wrote:

My slowish typing is gonna kill me one day. Ah well, Megareply Mode, activate!

Planet10 wrote:

There are not enough concrete facts about the PvP mechanics to say that it is good enough or lacking. The ST/League mechanics need a lot of detail.

To keep Open World Structured Event PvP manageable, I'm suggesting that ST/SL target rules would turn off when players choose a side in order to participate ([Event Faction], non-combat Observer, or Factionless if allowed by the event). I'm still curious whether a Super Team can be in just one or multiple Super Leagues, but either way, a simple "can't hit same event faction or same team" rule within Event PvP seems the least confusing. Players can probably sort out their teaming to match their event faction without too much trouble. I can imagine some complex events where "Police" faction players want to be teamed with others of a different but cooperating faction like "Fire Dept", each having different tactical objectives and temp powers but a common win condition...there's some emergent gameplay potential.

Quote:

What happens if you are in the area where the event is happening and you swap phases? How do you negotiate teams/groups? How do you negotiate declaring for a faction? Can you just be a separate entity in the fracas?

If swapping from PvP to PvE, I could imagine being moved to a safe location in the zone or not, depending on the size and dangerousness of the event. If swapping from PvE to PvP, same...plus whatever PvP activation timer would normally apply. See the Mode 1/2 idea below for how it resolves and gives plenty of time for Mode 2 PvPers to pick a side in the event without getting free-for-all'd. Teams could form in defined safe regions for the event. Declare for a faction by talking to its NPC contact in a safe region or by interacting with an event window. Some events could allow factionless participation, where it makes sense.

Quote:

Participation in a scenario is purely scenario driven. A case could be made to host the scenarios as exclusive to the PvP phase.

Agree. Further down, you ask what I think is a related question about my Meltdown example. I didn't mean to imply that a server-time-triggered event happening simultaneously in both the PvE and PvP phases would actually be the same event. They would act as two separate instances - imagine Rikti Dropships hitting two PvE instances (Talos 1PvE and 2PvE) and a PvP instance (Talos 1PvP) at the same time. And of course, any player-triggered event would be exclusive to the phase and instance of the zone in which it was triggered. For a CoH example, this would act most similarly to a Rikti Mothership raid, which only appeared in the instance in which the players destroyed all pylons.

Quote:

For some people rank and notoriety will still be a motivation. If they spot someone on a good kill streak or whatever and they are worth a lot of points, they declare for an opposing faction, roll in and just PvP and ignore the other scenario objectives. That is one reason why I do not like the rank/notoriety/achievement system.

Yes, rank and notoriety from the free-for-all could make a mess of structured events...possibly resolved with Mode 1/2 PvP flag (see below).

For the two example scenarios, I'll try replying within the quoted text with {SJ - [my comment]} so I don't have a zillion quote boxes.

Quote:

Comments for the Meltdown event:Since it is a reoccurring scenario and the power plant has to return to a baseline state, the completion states need to be some sort of recoverable situation. So the "Blob" side could win if they siphon enough then the reactor scrams.
{SJ - Yes, Meltdown is just an example, and each event will need thoughtful design to make the event close out correctly. I can imagine some events which cause a persistent change to the region (at least until the next event). Perhaps even a chain of events that depend on the outcome of the previous one...}

When a faction wins or the time runs out (the core faction wins), how do you resolve the fight in either phase? Do the core faction forces just build up to an insurmountable point? What happens if you have a supers team that is built to soak? Do you artificially lay down a whammy that knocks everyone out and sends them to the hospital? That seems kinda unfulfilling.
{SJ - Need to tailor the conclusion to fit the event - and I agree it should be satisfying/cool/realistic regardless of which side wins.}

Rotate in/out some competing factions. Vary some of their objectives (maybe two trying to do the same thing). The "Engineers" would be a constant since they own/control the facility.
{SJ - The rotation idea is perfect.}

Given the team/ST/League targeting rules, I am not sure how conflicting alliances will resolve themselves. Will allying with one of these factions only occur at the League level? If it happens at the ST level, what takes precedence if a ST in your League aligns with an opposing faction?
{SJ - Solved by suspending ST/SL rules and replacing with Event Faction rules during participation. Of course, a ST/SL could coordinate to ensure their players are all on one side, or on different but pre-agreed sides.}

What happens if the Leagues align with factions that aren't in opposition? The Blobs want more chaos to allow time to open more cracks, so you only really want to fight the Engineers. The Teks want everyone else occupied so they can steal information, so you don't want to engage with the Blobs and you want to stay under the Engineer's radar. By virtue of being in different Leagues you should be able to attack other players, but it doesn't make logical sense to do so. It only makes sense to attack those players to gain rank, build streaks and whatnot. So the objective of the scenario is in conflict with itself under these conditions.
{SJ - see above for part of the answer regarding leagues, but when it comes to motivation, each player would need to consider (as you did) what actions best serve their goals. Also regarding motivation, the Mode 1/2 idea may dramatically reduce the interference that rank and notoriety could create in an event, as it allows players to essentially tune themselves down to a low value target (Mode 2) and lock their rank/notoriety until they return to Mode 1.}

Do you need to be aligned with any of the factions to participate? This Power Plant is part of the open world, are you excluded from this area during the event?
{SJ - Due to its nature, this event could allow factionless participation (take any mixture of actions to serve your wishes at the moment, or create chaos). In general, I'd like to allow players to join mid-event and receive partial rewards, unless an event must be restricted for some good reason. If restricted, I suppose it would need to instance itself once started (like Hami raid zones did).}

What happens in the PvP phase if my League is aligned with one of the factions and a opposing League is also aligned to the same faction? Are those characters still active targets?
{SJ - league rules suspended. All players aligned to a faction are temporarily allied.}

I am unsure about allowing crossover between the PvE & PvP phases. If there is an overwhelming opposing force in the other phase your side is just going to lose that portion of the control mechanism. You can argue that there could be an opposing force, but then your faction is fighting on multiple fronts in two phases. How do you keep an eye on that without having cross phase coordination? There is the potential that you would be required to have a battle commander in each phase calling to have people swap phases. Then at that point you are gaming the phases and not gaming the event.
{SJ - No crossover of actions/effects between the phases...they are basically separate instances. So Faction A could win in the PvP phase-instance, and Faction B wins in the PvE phase-instance, and the event might time out in another PvE phase-instance. It's the same as how CoH's Hami raid in instance A might win, but Hami Raid B could still be in progress, or stalled.}

Comments for the ZoC event: The League concept for the purposes of control gets murky and shouldn't be the defining factor for determining sides. Initially a League should roll in and declare themselves as attackers. Everyone else (not in the attacker's League) that shows up will get defaulted into a defenders League for the duration of the event or until they explicitly leave that defenders League. This avoids overlapping fields of fire and the messiness of cobbling together a League that won't immediately mulch each other.
{SJ - I think the mulching mess is solved through the combination of safe zones for declaring, requiring players to declare alignment to an event faction (described above), suspending the ST/SL rules, and Mode 2 for anyone who wants to be safe while approaching/leaving the event.}

The event should not have a time limit set by the players. Players are exerting control of a resource for whatever reason. I would suggest a minimum of 30min for control. If the resource is still contested after 30min the battle continues until one League controls it uncontested for x minutes.
{SJ - sounds fine to me. However, I can see eventually allowing players to define similar but customized resource-control events (within limits)...an open-world custom event system to supplement our custom PvP maps our user generated PvE missions.}

We should fully understand how defeat and respawn mechanics work before setting completion goals. How much time is lost, where do you respawn, etc.
{SJ - Agree. In theory, some events could have unique mechanics, such as respawning in a guarded jail, or a massive stealth event where everyone is sneaking around, strategically tripping alarms, trying to get others caught rather than themselves...}

The scaling of rewards will need a closer look. I haven't thought that one through yet.There is more to be said on these topics, but it is late.
{SJ - fully agree.}

Those were excellent questions and points. Hopefully that means I'm at least close to the target of a second open-world PvP mode that can hold interest. I do believe that all of those questions are answerable, in a way that produces a viable PvP system...even if my own shots at those answers are wrong.

One idea I mentioned above needs much more thought - I think it's at the core of making structured event PvP viable in a world where the currently planned semi-free-for-all mode is also present.
It involves a "PvP Mode 1/2" flag to eliminate undesired conflict between players in each mode, by better aligning their motivations during an event, and by providing safe passage to and from structured open world events.

> Mode 1, Open World Semi-Free-For-All PvP
Those who prefer Tannim's current open world mode would turn this on, thereby fully activating the rank and notoriety stats and ability to earn associated achievements. Under normal (non-event) conditions, they can attack any other Mode 1 not in their team, ST, and SL. They can also fully participate in structured events alongside Mode 2 players, but since Mode 2 players are treated as if they have only the base rank and notoriety, Mode 1s have little motivation to fight Mode 2s except in support of event objectives. Mode 1s cannot harm Mode 2s except during an event in which both are participants...even if both are in the PvP phase. Mode 2s cannot affect the rank and notoriety of Mode 1s. Mode 1 participants in an event can affect each others' rank and notoriety...but of course they have the option to switch to Mode 2 (within appropriate limits).

> Mode 2, Open World Structured Event PvP Only
In this mode, a player is choosing to participate only in structured PvP events, and cannot gain or lose rank or notoriety while in Mode 2. They are not flagged for PvP even while in the PvP phase, until they chose an event faction in a structured PvP event. They leave the event faction if they change phase or leave the event boundary for too long (same for Mode 1s). Switching PvP modes would be limited by some kind of reasonable timer, and would be set as an option for each character.

"Open World Structured Event PvP" could include a wide variety of server-managed events designed by the Devs (server-time-triggered, player-triggered). It might even be possible to have player-customized events centered around control of a resource, building, or region - pick objectives and regions/resources from a list, choose a few rules, and create event. Some of these events could have a lot in common with indirect PvP events, thus saving development time and creating a gradual slope from PvE to Indirect PvP Events to Structured PvP Events to Free-For-All. The option to join events as a non-combat observer can help newbies, or become a new casual activity alongside costume contests.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Nice discussions, and worth

Nice discussions, and worth taking time to re-read
In depth.

But something you should be aware of when it comes to events in a map for our game - when an event happens om a map, a non-event instence of that map is also created. This allows players to choose to continue along their journey unaffected by the event.

We can apply the same for pvp events. If a pvp event is triggered, a non-pvp-event map can be instanced. The pvp event can certainly have separatee rules of engagement.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
I am going to hesitate to say

I am going to hesitate to say that adding a secondary tier of pvp flags (Mode1/2) is a good thing. For one it adds more prompting when you reach the boundary of the event (or another options menu setting). If it happens at the player level will there be some indicator over your head so the opposition knows that you are not worth 'normal' points? If there is no indicator, a M1 person can't prioritize other M1 threats. Mode 2 people can still impact Mode 1s. M2 people can assist in defeating M1 people. As long as another M1 player assists in the defeat of the M1 that is getting ganged they will get the rewards. You are essentially handicapping yourself if you don't 100% choose Mode 2 every time. Then you are essentially fighting a PvE scenario because no one loses or gains rank/notoriety/whatever.

If you simplify the Modes to just Mode 2 for these events it constricts the system even further. We will have this flurry of people in the PvP phase and none of them pose a threat and simultaneously are not attractive. According to MWM under their system the barrier for entry is low and the rank brackets shield them from being farmed. If there is a mode where no one gains or loses anything there is no point to PvP.

If you simplify the Modes to just Mode 1 for these events it is the exact same as not having any modes.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Empyrean wrote:
Empyrean wrote:

As the Bloody Nine says, you have to be realistic.

The rare appearances of the Bloody Nine were the only good things about that book series.
/nonsequitur

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 59 min 33 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

Empyrean wrote:
As the Bloody Nine says, you have to be realistic.
The rare appearances of the Bloody Nine were the only good things about that book series.
/nonsequitur

I know. I just stopped reading "Best Served Cold" half way through because I just couldn't go on. But Logen is a great character.

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

Scott Jackson
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/20/2013 - 20:13
That automatic event

That automatic event instancing of the map is good to know...thanks, Tannim.

Planet10 wrote:

I am going to hesitate to say that adding a secondary tier of pvp flags (Mode1/2) is a good thing. For one it adds more prompting when you reach the boundary of the event (or another options menu setting). If it happens at the player level will there be some indicator over your head so the opposition knows that you are not worth 'normal' points? If there is no indicator, a M1 person can't prioritize other M1 threats. Mode 2 people can still impact Mode 1s. M2 people can assist in defeating M1 people. As long as another M1 player assists in the defeat of the M1 that is getting ganged they will get the rewards. You are essentially handicapping yourself if you don't 100% choose Mode 2 every time. Then you are essentially fighting a PvE scenario because no one loses or gains rank/notoriety/whatever.

Fair points, and I'm not sold on the idea either. If anyone has a better way to let players enjoy events without worrying about ruining a killstreak or getting unwillingly ganked on the way to/from the event or griefed in a way that they cannot participate, I'm interested.

As far as I know, if there is a tier 1 PvP flag, it's invisible to the player and is toggled by switching phases, maybe with a little delay before it activates. It's a small comfort that we'd only have one visible flag to manipulate, but do we at least avoid most potential confusion due to that difference? I was seeing M1/M2 as an option menu setting, and a possible popup question and tutorial when a player enters an event area in Mode 1: "Do you want to switch to M2 when entering event areas? [Always/Yes This Time/Not This Time/Never] Here's why you might want to...". The only players who would answer "Always" or "Yes This Time" are those interested in building and preserving their M1 rank/notoriety.

I could have missed a detailed description from Tannim about how a player's rank and notoriety are displayed to others, but I was just thinking we'd piggyback on that system to show that a player in M2 is worth minimal points.

Yes, M2 people could assist a M1 (knowingly or unknowingly due to the fracas) in the defeat of another M1. However from my understanding of the rank and notoriety, the "reward" would be distributed over all winners, and the M2s' share would be discarded, so the winning M1 wouldn't gain any more with this tactic than they could with ganking tactics in regular open zone Free-For-All play. Regardless, you're correct - that's still the main motivation for M1s to switch to M2 when participating in events. Some M1 players might still choose to stay M1 for the challenge / realism aspect.

I was thinking the events would have their own set of PvP rewards (*not* rank and notoriety) tied directly to the competing factions you assist during the events. Mode 2 players get the event's rewards. Mode 1 players get the same event-specific rewards, but also accept the potential risks/rewards to their rank and notoriety. Those rewards are the basic motivation for anyone to engage in structured PvP, plus whatever motivates you as the player (like in the WoW travel-control case). It could be a currency as described by Tannim, that a player can then exchange for xp or items. I imagine events could have associated badges, too.

By de-emphasizing rank/notoriety during events, we can offer participants a way to pick sides and fight for reasons that matter to the character, following their moral code, and be rewarded for it. That's a lore-connected gameplay alternative to the semi-FFA aspects already planned, made to coexist and weave into that plan, while hopefully staying true to what others in the thread have requested (moral/logic/game-world-driven PvP). Better yet, nothing stops us from creating some hardcore PvP events that focus exclusively on defeating opposing players, and custom player events could be configured during setup to require participants to be in M1 - for example, a team deathmatch event with diametrically opposed organizations who are paying players as mercenaries. There could even be a "last person standing" true FFA competition event sponsored by some NPC organization's recruiters...which is of course unique to the PvP phase.

Does having that separate PvP reward system for events encourage players to participate even if most are in M2 to avoid rank/notoriety effects? Does it ensure that we're offering them a real choice between two distinct PvP gameplay styles (M1 and M2) and rewards, and also make PvP events feel unique from PvE events? I hope the answers are yes. Of course, I'm assuming event rewards can be properly balanced to give stuff that appeals to PvP players.

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Scott Jackson wrote:
Scott Jackson wrote:

I could have missed a detailed description from Tannim about how a player's rank and notoriety are displayed to others

Yes, M2 people could assist a M1 (knowingly or unknowingly due to the fracas) in the defeat of another M1. However from my understanding of the rank and notoriety, the "reward" would be distributed over all winners, and the M2s' share would be discarded, so the winning M1 wouldn't gain any more with this tactic than they could with ganking tactics in regular open zone Free-For-All play. Regardless, you're correct - that's still the main motivation for M1s to switch to M2 when participating in events. Some M1 players might still choose to stay M1 for the challenge / realism aspect.

I was thinking the events would have their own set of PvP rewards (*not* rank and notoriety) tied directly to the competing factions you assist during the events. Mode 2 players get the event's rewards. Mode 1 players get the same event-specific rewards, but also accept the potential risks/rewards for their rank and notoriety.

Does having that separate PvP reward system for events encourage players to participate even if most are in M2 to avoid rank/notoriety effects? Does it ensure that we're offering them a real choice between two distinct PvP gameplay styles (M1 and M2) and rewards, and also make PvP events feel unique from PvE events? I hope the answers are yes. Of course, I'm assuming event rewards can be properly balanced to give stuff that appeals to PvP players.

You did not miss a detailed description from Tannim about how rank, notoriety and streaks are displayed. It has not happened yet.

In the M2A helping M1A defeat M1B scenario it is assumed that the rewards are split then M2A's rewards are dumped on the floor because they are in Mode2. But also look at the complete picture. M1B was defeated and lost any Streaks and Achievements. M1A now has at least a streak of one, is one closer on Achievements, gained an incremental amount of rank juice and the potential threat of M1B is not present for however long it takes to respawn and travel back. This affords M1A the opportunity to work on M1C or M2B since they now are threats to the streak, achievement or loss of rank since M1A is Mode 1 active. It is probable that any Mode 2s are not a threat unless they are aligned to opposing factions. One problem here is that there is a potential that M1 active players in the event would be more concerned about losing and potentially gaining ground than actually trying to complete the event itself. If you are Mode 1 active you are guaranteed to lose something if you are defeated by another player and you are not guaranteed that there will be another Mode 1 player on an opposing faction that you can defeat to gain anything (they might even be in a lower tier where you get nothing).

It boils down to this: If no one goes M1 active there is no point in having ranks/notoriety/achievements/streaks. If the majority of the playerbase only goes M2 active for these events there is no reason to have more than one Mode.

If I put my PvP hat on I would take one of a couple approaches under this Mode 1/2 scheme:

  • (1a) Only roll into these types of events Mode 1 active if I know there are a significant number of other Mode 1 targets so I can change the flow of the event (and most likely not care anything about rank/notoriety/streaks/achievements)
  • (1b) Only roll into these types of events Mode 1 active if I have a large collection of other like minded players in League that don't care at all about rank/notoriety/streaks/achievements to maybe draw out the competition
  • (2) Only participate in these events Mode 2 active
  • (3) Spot someone(s) I want to tussle with, wait on the perimeter until the event ends then engage them

The problem with (1b) is that it might be hard to find enough players that don't care about down ranking.

On the subject of rewards it must be made clear that there should be nothing remotely close to a PvE reward hidden behind the veil of PvP. And these events are a crossover point for PvE & PvP. If there is a reward for the PvE portion of the event it can be whatever loot/badge/currency MWM wants. The added complexity of the PvP phase version of the events should reward a bonus ontop of what would be earned in PvE. I would suggest making it some increment of the cash shop currency. Then whatever they buy in the shop with their augmented rewards it is the same thing that is available to everyone else. That is one way to encourage people to participate in the PvP phase version of the events.

Scott Jackson
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/20/2013 - 20:13
Quote:
Quote:

It is probable that any Mode 2s are not a threat unless they are aligned to opposing factions. One problem here is that there is a potential that M1 active players in the event would be more concerned about losing and potentially gaining ground than actually trying to complete the event itself. If you are Mode 1 active you are guaranteed to lose something if you are defeated by another player and you are not guaranteed that there will be another Mode 1 player on an opposing faction that you can defeat to gain anything (they might even be in a lower tier where you get nothing).

In an event, no player (M1 or M2) is a threat to another (M1 or M2) unless aligned to opposing factions, so M1s would be safe from each other as long as they are on the same side in the event (or in a safe zone, or on the same team). I think you understood that, but I just wanted to be extra clear. All players aligned to opposing factions are a threat, but M1s would be more sensitive to the presence of opposing M1s since their mixed motives are more *personally* dangerous than the event-driven motives of opposing M2s.
Let's use your players (M1A, M2A, M1B) in a scenario. Let's imagine an event with only two opposing factions. M1A (Mode 1 Player A) and M2A align with one faction, M1B aligns with the other faction. Certainly, M1B would be wise to worry more about M1A than M2A, since M1A isn't just trying to win the event, but might also be hoping to defeat M1B with M2A's help as a way to gain rank/notoriety. M1B could respond in several ways - get more friendlies to reduce the risk, go M2 to eliminate the risk, or take on the challenge. Next time, M1B might be more careful and use your #1b approach to turn the tables.

For the case where a M1 player is defeated by all M2s (or by a bunch of M1s who are much lower rank/"bracket"/"level"/whatever we're calling it when the system decides they are not a worthy opponent), I'm open to ideas. Maybe no loss of rank/notoriety unless at least one valid M1 rival was involved in the defeat? I suppose the same question & problem exists outside of events, since in the open world, a bunch of low rank M1s could defeat a high ranked M1 who'd gain nothing or practically nothing from retaliating. I'm going to re-read for hints of the current plan.

Overall, I can't say what will happen - maybe everyone converges on one answer: go M2 during events. That still gets us a functioning PvP system for open world semi-FFA (M1), and lively structured event PvP (M2) where motives are fully aligned with each faction's objectives, except for the lazy or chaotic actors that can appear not matter what.

Even if all players *in events* use M2, we still need M1 to handle PvP outside of events and hand out rewards for open world conflicts. Maybe M1 could be redesigned...but I'm at a loss for how. We'd also need to keep M1 if we want to please people who want to tackle dev-made events as hardmode PvP challenges, or to give those folks a way to set up their own M1-only hardmode PvP events in the open world.

I agree with your list of likely approaches, that seems like the thought process to expect from most players. #3 is probably not common, unless one's target agrees to meet after the event. Due to the safe zones (for respawning and declaring alignment) that each event would have, and Tannim's note on how zone events can create one instance with and another without the event, it would probably be easy to avoid post-event ambushes by logging out, toggling M2, or moving to the PvE phase during an event's resolution period (battle result announcement, reward collection).

Certainly, whatever rewards there are for the event in PvP should be PvP-centric where possible...such as PvP "gear"/temp powers that only work in the PvP phase, or it's equal to PvE gear rewards but with extra PvP-only bonuses. If there is some reward that's useful to both PvE and PvP (such as XP or currency), then I could see a fair, larger amount of it being granted to the PvP players due to the increased difficulty of facing other players. At the moment, I'm neutral on the cash shop currency idea...but if MWM started doing that in PvE, then PvP should get it too.

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Scott Jackson wrote:
Scott Jackson wrote:

maybe everyone converges on one answer: go M2 during events. That still gets us a functioning PvP system for open world semi-FFA (M1), and lively structured event PvP (M2) where motives are fully aligned with each faction's objectives, except for the lazy or chaotic actors that can appear not matter what.

At the moment, I'm neutral on the cash shop currency idea...but if MWM started doing that in PvE, then PvP should get it too.

Introducing the Mode1/2 toggle creates a third state for a two phase game. It over complicates the system and does not help encourage players to visit the PvP phase.

MWM has already said that everything in the cash shop can be acquired by just playing the game. The cash portion of the shop just allows you to accelerate the acquisition time. If certain events reward a tiny little bit of cash shop currency that can be a lever to incentivize players to participate.

Edit: yeah, late night typing. The brain added the 'not', the fingers did not.

Scott Jackson
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/20/2013 - 20:13
Hmm. Ok, well I found a few

Hmm. Ok, well I found a few references to "brackets of possible contact" and "level brackets", so I guess that's what I was trying to say with my word salad about worthy opponents.

How wide should these brackets be? (five levels? ten?)
Are they fixed brackets like 21-25 and 26-30 (L24 cannot fight L27)? Or is it the relative difference between the players that matters (level 24 versus level 27 is within the max 5 level difference)?
What exactly happens in the open world when a L24 tries to target someone who is L40, or vice versa? Do they get both get "Invalid Target" messages?

If a team in the open world contains players from multiple brackets, can they try to fight another team that also contains multiple brackets? How? Could they try to sidekick up or exemplar down so that both teams' members would be within the allowed level range / same bracket?

If we are going to have some kind of level-less tech (as in Rikti Invasions) to make PvE open world events accessible to a wide range of levels all in the same event, can this tech be applied to PvP events too? Are we prepared to accept the side effects produced, as players with very different natural levels clash at an equal combat level? Relying on manual sidekick/Exemplaring seems too messy to consider, but limiting an event to a specific level bracket and autoexemplaring down to its max level (as was done in CoH PvP zones and TFs) might work as an alternative to level-less tech.

Perhaps the best answer is to have level-less tech apply to the events where it makes sense (e.g. zone invasions) and use a bracket + autoexemplar scheme for events where that is a better fit.

I suppose we won't have a real solid plan for event PvP until these pieces can get nailed down. I should shut up for a while, and see what other ideas come up in discussion.

Scott Jackson
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/20/2013 - 20:13
Scott Jackson wrote:
Scott Jackson wrote:

maybe everyone converges on one answer: go M2 during events. That still gets us a functioning PvP system for open world semi-FFA (M1), and lively structured event PvP (M2) where motives are fully aligned with each faction's objectives...

Planet10 wrote:

Introducing the Mode1/2 toggle creates a third state for a two phase game. It over complicates the system and does help encourage players to visit the PvP phase.

Maybe you meant "does not help encourage"? Sure, it's a substate of the PvP phase, so you can call it a third possible state for players to be in. We also have lots of other similar states to deal with...teamed/solo, which map instance to choose (if there are several copies due to population), arena PvP settings, on task force or raid or not, part of a SuperTeam or not, in a PvP safe zone or not, which build is equipped at the moment, sidekicked, exemplared, etc.

For the moment, let's assume you are correct, that adding PvP Mode 2 is a step too far up the complexity ladder, and can't work for that reason.
Is there some alternative method to achieve the same goals? Or there a goal that you believe should be eliminated?
1. Permit open world PvP semi-free-for-all as currently planned.
2. Permit open world PvP events driven by lore and character morals (post-release addition).
3. Allow players the choice to participate in just 1, just 2, or both.
4. Encourage players to try PvP (caveat - not all are willing to jump from PvE into a semi-FFA).

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 2 sec ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
I don't like the modes in any

I don't like the modes in any way. If you are in PvP you are in PvP.

However, if there is an event and a character has joined the event somehow, their kill streak should be frozen until they are out of the event. While a kill streak is frozen it can not be built up nor can it be broken..

It should be pretty easy to determine if an event has been joined. Targeting an event NPC should not be enough, but actually engaging the event NPC should. Anything that is considered "entering combat" with an event NPC or another player who is also flagged as an event participant would freeze a player's kill-streak. Dying or leaving the event and allowing a cooldown timer to expire are the two ways to unfreeze a kill streak. And as soon as the event ends, the cooldown timer allows people to get their bearings and pick their targets or get out of dodge before kill-streaks become unfrozen.

There would still be an incentive to kill other players during an event because I am presuming that killing another player could help you win your event. If there are opposing sides, for instance. But the kill-streak portion of the incentive would not exist for any players actually participating in an event.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
There could be a different

There could be a different achievements for regular pvp and event pvp including kill streaks. Like Huckleberry said, the normal pvp achievement would be frozen during event participation and then there can be an event-based version.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Yep, thanks. I was tired and

Yep, thanks. I was tired and the 'not' didn't quite make it from the brain to the fingers.

Scott Jackson wrote:

For the moment, let's assume you are correct, that adding PvP Mode 2 is a step too far up the complexity ladder, and can't work for that reason.
Is there some alternative method to achieve the same goals? Or there a goal that you believe should be eliminated?

Take a step back and look at the original assertion made.

Quote:

I mentioned above needs much more thought - I think it's at the core of making structured event PvP viable in a world where the currently planned semi-free-for-all mode is also present.
It involves a "PvP Mode 1/2" flag to eliminate undesired conflict between players in each mode, by better aligning their motivations during an event, and by providing safe passage to and from structured open world events.

What is the undesired conflict that the Modes are shielding players from in this setup?
The Modes only augment who is worth defeating, they do not adjudicate who can be defeated.

Presumably players attend the events to take them to some point of completion. They can affect shared PvE elements, but they cannot affect other players. If they want to assert a greater degree of control over the event they need to do so in the PvP phase. The motivation is still the same >> bringing the event to a desired beneficial end point. Regardless of the phase, the goal is the same.

There are two states for the game world, PvE phase or PvP phase. A player is subject to the rules of the state that they inhabit for the duration of their stay. With the application of the Mode toggle it introduces a third state (let's call it PvPbeta phase) where some players are not subject to all of the rules of the state they inhabit. In effect it creates a third state for the game world. If you are in the PvP phase you should truly and completely be in the PvP phase. Running around in an open field with a Mode2 flag active is not going to dissuade an opposing player every time. At some point they are going to get pissed that all of these visitors are playing with an unbalanced ruleset. Then you will witness the range of behaviors that those M2s fear. I liken it to caged animal behavior. You tolerate your conditions for only so long then the 'screw it' switch gets flipped and your prey gets to suffer all of your frustration from all of the past M2 visitors.

One issue with open world PvP that people need to accept is that the player has no direct control over who shows up or how competent others are at driving their character. You have to be willing to play under those conditions (that is what PvP is). Tannim mentioned that events are semi-instanced, but so will all aspects of the game world. It is a semi-permeable wall that keeps a rough number of participants inside and all the other unaligned out. Truly structured PvP is a queued scenario like battlegrounds where there are a set number of players, there is a pocket universe for them to skirmish in, and there is a clearly defined goal (or end state).

Quote:

Is there some alternative method to achieve the same goals?

Yes, I'm currently cooking something up.

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
I have a couple questions fro

I have a couple questions for Tannim222:
PvP will have Ranks within each Level Bracket.

Post #17 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. And 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 (even buffs).

Post #67 wrote:

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".
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.
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.

Post #20 wrote:

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 system 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 notoriety - 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).

The Level Bracket & Rank system is only a measure of how much you PvP and how much Notoriety juice you squeeze out of the players you defeat.

  • How do you handle the situation where and experienced PvPer brings a fresh character to the PvP phase and starts wrecking the place? If my character has a high enough Level Bracket and I cannot affect them, what can I do? Just sit there and weep because I can do nothing to them?
  • What happens if I am running around and I see someone getting jumped 3:1 and I want to help out the solo person, but they are below my level bracket and I can't affect them (buff, heal, etc)? Again, just weep for their loss of time and go about my business?

How is arbitrarily preventing the playerbase from playing the game helping to promote actually playing the game?

Also, ganking won't just miraculously disappear because there are Level Brackets. It just means that it will be restricted to each bracket. And if they don't gain any Notoriety for repeatedly ganking that means they will remain in this level bracket to torment these players longer. If someone comes along and defeats the ganker, their streak will break, but that still doesn't dissuade them from the behavior.

Pages