My vision is to have PvPers stabbing each other with shrimp forks!

*noms on mountains of shrimp*

Impulse King wrote:

Since you can level up from PvP alone, what happens to existing Notoriety when you level up into the next bracket? (Say going from 10 to 11 in the prior example.)

Notoriety is the "bounty" one has from consistently defeating other players. It stays with the character until the "bounty" is claimed.

Character levels is separate from PvP Rank.
PvP level bracket is a range of character levels for combat engagement. Again selarate from rank.
Gaining Notoriety does not increase your tank.
Increasing rank happens as you earn pvp achievements - which includes wins. Rank matters for earning pvp-xp when entering combat with others - too far out of rank and you don't earn much pvp xp, closer to your rank and above earns more .
Getting too many wins - especially against lower ranks earns Notoriiety - which acts as a multiplier of the character's "worth"'when defeated.
Earning rank (unlocking achivements) can yield a bonus currency which can be used to exchange for rewards - such as character xp to level your character.

Side-kicking down does scale powers - removed powers not available at thatt level and reduces improvements to powers (how they are socketed).

Side-kicking up for pvp does not give you more powers or soxkets, and only scales the powers available by level mod. Unless you are sure about the strategy and applition of side-kicking up a lower level for pvp - it is probaly unwise for pvp - it is there because you can still engage with pve content in the pvp phase.

There is no way of "keeping things even" which is what most players think "balance" means. For games like this balance actually means the range within bounds of performance. Eaxh level bracket will determine the possible bounds. Yes, higher level players will have an edge even within their brakcet - but not an out-right "i win" scenario. And even within the brakcets - winning over the lower level ranges consistently (if similar ranks) will result in a rank disparity which means less rank improvement by taking on those lower levels - and if the behavior continues - increases the winner's notoriety - making them more of a target.

PvE cap has nothing to do with Notoriety. You can still earn jt - but you shouldn't want to earn high notoriety unless you want to make yourself a target for others.

Ranks can be any amount we want separate from
Pve leves. But even kf there is a "cap" we can "loop" the pvp "xp" gain to use for providin opportunity to earn the "currency" to exchange for other rewards.

And once again - this is only the start - and for open world pvp. There may be other events and modes for pvp created after launch and into the future.

*continues to poke PvPers with her Impervium shrimp fork*

Huckleberry wrote:

I like that those who 'take on' lower level opponents in PvP gain more notoriety, thereby making them more attractive targets in return, via bounties.
What does 'take on' mean? Because I can see a bunch of lower level allies or even Alts being used to attack a character to build its notoriety in order to be a fatter lamb for the slaughter.

Sorry, by take on I mean engage in combat. If the lower ranked players are initiating combat - it does not affect the higher ranked player's notoriety for success. Indeed it should follow - who started the fight.

It also affects players who jump into a fight alrwady underway. Say a rank 10 sees two rank 2s in a fight. The10 takes out one of the 2s. He and the other 2 share the reward, the 10 gettting a modified-reduced portion of the reward - but since he initiated the attack vs a lower ranked target - he gets more Notoriety.

Amerikatt wrote:

*wonders if Huckleberry is related to Boysenberry*

If you find one that tastes like Olallieberry I'll hold them down while you fork them.

One thing I do wonder, is if two players decide to pvp against each other, if effects from other players or buffs will be disabled? If a bunch of people are standing around watching a duel, there is no way of knowing if one of those bystanders is a teammate of one of the duelists and therefore affecting that teammate with aoe team buffs?

The more I think about it, the more it looks like City of Gangbangers. You could almost script in a graffiti option where someone's handle gets written and then XXXX over when they fall. I see some appeal but not as much as I had hoped considering you had a blank slate, studied the issue carefully and an had an opportunity to integrate a wide range of things in the initial design. The dichotomy in philosophy in the approach between PvE and PvP is so great it leaves little wonder why there are so many PvP haters in this genre. I feel bad about putting something down before I have a chance to even try it.... but maybe something better will come of this discussion in future PvP iterations.

Tannim222 wrote:

Here is the thing, however, MMOs have the potential to offer something not always available anywhere else; larger scale battles.
Since the game is starting with open-world pvp using the pve maps, the intent is to give pvpers some purpose to pvp (other than the thrill of virtual combat vs another thinking person), reduce the barrier of entry, and provide some safe guards to encourage certain behaviors.
Other types of games are better designed to cover 1v1 and small group battles. MMOs attempt to offers these with varying degrees of success, but none do these better than the games designed for those smaller scale pvp.
As time goes on, we can explore letting players make ugc pvp maps and provide instances events for smaller scale combat. Having open world large scale pvp is planned as well. We will also eventually have noncombat pvp.

As stated, the reason to PvP at CoT launch is to juice the player base for as much PvP Rank-xp as possible in order to rank up and generate currency to be spent. PvP will be on rails that will have the real possibility to break the user's continuity (flow or 4th wall or whatever you want to call it) when they slam head on into the Level Bracket.

Given the current understanding of the structure for the opposition, everyone not in your League (or Super Team or minimally speaking, your group) will appear as an enemy. It will take a lot of player effort to discover the active Leagues that are operating in the PvP phase so they aren't just running around as juicy targets for the regulars. There is a possibility for vigilante groups to assert dominance in this situation (which could be interesting), but then you might be at the mercy of the person(s) who manage the League.

UGC pvp maps are essentially queued battlegrounds and do not address the issue of open world pvp. It just shields them from the PvP phase.

Dueling Shrimp Forks ... at dawn!

*plays opening chords of "Dueling Shrimp Forks"*

Cinnder wrote:

Hey Tannim, will we have an option to set Duel Invitations to auto-decline? I remember playing other MMOs with duel mechanics and being spammed by folks who just wanted to fight.

I don't see a reason why we can't provide a toggle option.

Impulse King wrote:

(Side question! If the starter area has multiple instances, will the PvP phase NEED to have an equal amount of instances?)

Each area map can spawn as many instances as needed no matter the phase.

Fireheart wrote:

Amerikatt wrote:
*plays opening chords of "Dueling Shrimp Forks"*
*Twang!?*
I'm allergic to shrimp! Take your deadly weapons and go find me a steak-knife!
Be Well!
Fireheart

*gives a butter knife to Fireheart*

*groans*

Honestly, PvEers hating on PvPers is the same as PvPers hating on PvEers. It's not which one you are, it's if you pick a side and choose to hate. PvP or PvE--the same lowest common denominator is the haters.

Fireheart has it right, live and let live. Don't begrudge others living elsewhere doing things that you don't approve of if they aren't harming anyone who doesn't actively choose to participate.

And, again, this is coming from someone who PvPs between 1% and 5% of the time at most.

Ok, let me give an analogy to gain some perspective.

Some people who do martial arts or boxing or MMA or whatever choose to spar or compete. Or hell, even rock climbing or base jumping, any activity that has a significant risk. In these activities, they could face bad, mean people and/or get hurt--perhaps even to the point of needing surgery or (rare, but) being paralyzed or dying. But they know that going in and choose to do it.

Now, if they are mentally incompetent to make decisions or were forced into sparring or competition or base jumping against their will, or they somehow had no sense of the consequences, that would be horrible and their victimizers who forced or deceived them into doing it would deserve "hate" (not that I support hate in any form, just using the term). But, if they are mentally sound and knowingly accept the risks and willingly participate, that is different.

Now some still don't condone or accept such activities even if they don't personally have to participate and even if it's others participating as knowing, consensual participants who are sound of mind and body. This WOULD BE analogous with disproving of PvP that you don't have to ever engage in--except for the fact that you you can't get physically hurt or killed in PvP. All that can happen is not having fun or getting your feelings hurt.

So, if you disprove of Boxing or MMA or any dangerous activity in general that you don't personally participate in, then it MIGHT make sense that you would feel the same about PvP. But, even if that were the case, I personally disagree.

If you don't have to do it and others do it consensually, and ESPECIALLY IF the worst consequence is people not having fun or getting their feelings hurt, then let em do their thing.

Trust me, they'll stop if they don't like it.

I do not and will not begrudge people the opportunity to PvP to their heart's delight.

Although my exposure to PvP has been rare, it has also been chocked full of noxious, self-centered, and pathetic jerks whose only feeling of worth and self-fulfillment has been through ganking (both solo and in gank gangs) other people and then trying to somehow justify their heinous and egregious behavior by stating that that is the nature of PvP or that they are simply "roleplaying".

On the flip side, however, are the decent people who PvP but are willing to set aside the negativity of the immoral minority and actually *help* non-PvPers who are in PvP zones simply because they were trying to get a PvE-centric item. Those decent folk are, likely, in the *majority*, but are overshadowed by the behavior of rancid losers, who do their darnedest to ruin the reps of decent PvPers and, in so doing, also adversely affecting PvP as an alternate gaming resource.

Cinnder wrote:

I would have been pretty disappointed if another player helped me get my Shivan or nukes in the old game instead of attacking me, especially if they were on the other side of the red/blue divide. Just cuz I was there for a PvE goal doesn't mean they had any obligation to ignore the concept behind a PvP zone. Attacking other players in a PvP zone isn't morally reprehensible; it's what the zone is designed and intended for.

I concur that entering a known PvP area would mean that -- in most likelihood -- a person will be attacked.

It was wrong for the CoH Devs to place badges in PvP zones just so that PvE players will have to enter those areas. BAAAAD DEVS!!!

Overall, though, it was reassuring that PvP players were willing to override the reptilian parts of their brain and express their humanity. It did not hurt them *and* it helped to assuage some of the negative rep which was perpetrated by the rude players.

Quote:

It was wrong for the CoH Devs to place badges in PvP zones just so that PvE players will have to enter those areas. BAAAAD DEVS!!!

Please leave this type of commentary to the other thread. That is why this thread had to be created in the first place (reference the OP).

My point about PvP "haters" was actually about population size more than anything else. IIRC in CoH, PvPers were around 5%. Gosh, I would think you could do almost anything in an MMO and get 5% participation. Some people have already implied in this thread that it may not be worth it for the devs to invest a whole lot into PvP due to its small population. Well, I was kind of hoping given CoT could do "anything" on the PvP side, that they could come up with something out of the gate that would raise that number. I am sorry to say I don't believe this initial offering is it.

I am no gaming genius and I don't have a crystal ball that works either. But, it's not very difficult to see if you (1) take a game with CoT's basic PvE premise (i.e. pug friendly, anything goes in terms of build and play style, you "win" much more than "lose" even when the odds in terms of numbers are drastically against you, etc.) and (2) you introduce a CoT PvP premise (i.e. not for everybody, specialized builds, there is a bounty on your head, the probability that you lose is much greater than you win if you are a novice, you will be ganged up on and beaten into submission, etc.) then the appeal of PvP is going to remain very low. The effect on the average player leaving a CoT PvE environment and entering a PvP environment has got to be shocking at best and devastating brutal at worse. Heck, the devs have gone as a far as purposely blur the lines between "hero" and "villain" in an attempt to condone the resultant behaviors.

The question becomes "Is all of this OK?". Because if it is then we have to be willing to continue to accept a 5% player population and horror stories of mistreatment (which is a great definition of the opposite of fun). The easy way out is to just say "We are going to encourage that segment of the population to act that way and if you don't like it you don't have to participate". The greater challenge would be to find other avenues for players to compete against players that offer a higher probability of enjoyment to more people. I hope the latter eventually becomes a reality.

Fireaway, your concerns are noted. I wish we had the development resources to being more to pvp for launch.

There are a couple of things to keep in mind with the current system:

We are designing mechanics to be agnostic between pve and pvp. To that extent, power effects affect npcs the same way they affect pcs. We are including pvp metrics in pve design.

What this means is that builds won't need to be as specialized for pvp of you are looking backwards to CoH for comparison. Players will certainly optimize builds, but since the metrics of performance in pvp are imparted in the pve design, the differences won't be as large.

While certaibly the open world aspect will lend itself to players grouping to attack others, the same is true for grouping as a form of defense. That leads to the massively in the M for MMORPG for pvp.

Your assumption is correct, regarding being defeated for often in pvp compaired to pve. Nothing will change that - it is in part of the nature of pvp. It is a matter of having appropriate expectations. There are those who take losing in a video game personally even if the winner isn't mean spirited about the win. People who don't enjoy pvp due to these aspexts by comparing pvp to pve will never be satisfied with combat-based pvp.

The best we can do is to lower thr barrier of entry for those who are not used to pvp. That is why we've included pvp metrics, agnsotic combat effects, a specific option to make a pvp build (if one is desired) from the pve build, having brackets of engagement to reduce the range of performance between levels, and the Notoriety system to place a target on those who win too often.

There isn't much else we could do to entice pve players to pvp other than make the mistake of placing specidic rewards only obtainable in the pvp phase. We've seen this attempt in the past and already know it failed to increase the population of those who reguarly pvp in a significant statisitcal measure. For the most part, it created hostility between to the two player types, and earned ite from pve players toward the devs for the attempt.

As such, I don't beleive the attempt here is to purposefully increase the pvp popluation by trying to entice pve players into pvp. Instead it is to make the basis if pvp in an open world playable in as fair if a way possible with all of our mechanics and systems, so that for those who enjoy the massive aspect of an mmo, and enjoy pvp - they will have their place.

Then if they're happy with how the game plays (in other words, the open-world pvp is successful), they will build their own community which has thr potential to grow of its own accord by bringing in fresh players who enjoy pvp.

There aren't many games which offer the possibility of multi-group player combat, that plays well, with a high degree of player customization in appearance of character, character abilitiy appearance, character functionalitu, and a wide range of character mobility. If we are successful in those aspects, players who like all that will come to play the game.

Again, keep in mind, we have to get the basics down for launch. As time goes on, we want to include more for pvp from open world pvp events, instenced pvp combat events, letting players make instenced pvp maps, and plenty of non-combat forms of pvp.

Impulse King wrote:

I've suggested this before in other threads. Characters new to PvP should be told that "In a FAIR fight, you die half of the time." The intent being to make players aware that death in PvP is far more common than death in PvE. With luck this reduces the tendancy to equate death with being a bad player ( as opposed to new) and the resulting attempts to maintain self image by placing blame everywhere else. Adjusting expectations won't keep EVERYone from making ridiculous excuses, but it should reduce the occurrence.

The problem is the player's perception of "fairness". Players will percieve many things as unfair, from connection rates to servers to "balance issues" with powers / characters / classes / environment. Even when a dev can provide information which indicates a statistical norm for those aspects of design, perception of the player may not accept the hard truth and the person will infuse their analysis based not on the statisitical data, but on their own biases.

Basically, even if a drv could guaranty a 50/50 win / loss ratio, a player may not accept that everytime they lose. Especially when the loss is to another person on the other end of the interwebs.

I have another suggestion for the PvP phase in [url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/pvp-phase-suggestion-part-2#comment-127203]this thread[/url].