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.

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.

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.

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*

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 [b]VERY[/b] reassuring, Tannim!]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Tannim222 wrote:

[I]Hero[/I] and [I]Villain[/I] 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.
[list][*]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.[/list]

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.

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

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 '[I]are you in my League or not[/I]'.

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)?

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.

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'.

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 [I]want[/I] 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 wrote:

I could not agree more, Planet10.

Super speed high five
[youtube]9pBMT0mmKyw[/youtube]

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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:
[list][*]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. [/list]

Comments for the ZoC event:
[list][*] 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.[/list]

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

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 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.

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:
[list][*] (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[/list]
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 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.

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 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.
[list][*]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?[/list]

[h2]How is arbitrarily preventing the playerbase from playing the game helping to promote actually playing the game?[/h2]

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.