Announcements

Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2

Please read the current update for instructions on downloading the latest update. Players with Mac versions of the game will not be affected, but you will have a slightly longer wait for your version of the new maps. Please make a copy of your character folder before running the new update, just to make sure you don't lose any of your custom work.

It looks like we can give everyone a list of minimum specs for running City of Titans. Please keep in mind that this is 'for now' until we are able to add more graphics and other system refinements. Currently you will need :
Windows 10 or later required; no Intel integrated graphics like UHD, must have AMD or NVIDIA card or discrete chipset with 4Gb or more of VRAM
At least 16GB of main DRAM.
These stats may change as we continue to test.

To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.

How do we stop gankers from ruining the PvP phase?

88 posts / 0 new
Last post
notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
How do we stop gankers from ruining the PvP phase?

Hey so I decided to make this thread to discuss something really important about the PvP phase in CoT, how do we prevent gankers from going to low level areas and killing every new player that they see?

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

Halae
Halae's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/17/2014 - 09:37
You're working under the

You're working under the assumption that areas that allow pvp won't have control limits on levels, which seems like an extremely likely turn of events for the exact same reason you just mentioned.

The alternate explanation is equally simple; you can only flag for PvP in a given area if you meet a specific level range. that's somewhat more restricting, though.

An infinite number of tries doesn't mean that any one of those tries will succeed. I could flip an infinite number of pennies an infinite number of times and, barring genuine randomness, they will never come up "Waffles".

notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Halae wrote:
Halae wrote:

You're working under the assumption that areas that allow pvp won't have control limits on levels, which seems like an extremely likely turn of events for the exact same reason you just mentioned.

The alternate explanation is equally simple; you can only flag for PvP in a given area if you meet a specific level range. that's somewhat more restricting, though.

Yeah that sounds like a good idea. Was that said by a dev at some point?

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
notears wrote:
notears wrote:

Hey so I decided to make this thread to discuss something really important about the PvP phase in CoT, how do we prevent gankers from going to low level areas and killing every new player that they see?

Related to what Halae just said it's always possible depending on where you PvP the game will automatically set everyone in the immediate area to a specific preset combat level. Remember back in CoH the game automatically set everyone in a given PvP zone to specific combat levels:

  • Bloody Bay - available at level 15, all players set to level 25
  • Siren's Call - available at level 20, all players set to level 30
  • Warburg - available at level 30, all players set to level 38
  • Recluse's Victory - available at level 40, all players set to level 50

So it could easily work like that in CoT. The game would simply assign a certain combat level to each player depending on the city area they're in which would likely be related to the combat levels of the NPCs that exist in that area.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
... something about a level

... something about a level 'lens' giving reduced rewards for contests between opponents with less level parity. I seem to recall there's to be an asocial 'flag' that goes on those that kill 'children' often, too.

But I don't really care about PvP, as long as I don't have to see it.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

... something about a level 'lens' giving reduced rewards for contests between opponents with less level parity. I seem to recall there's to be an asocial 'flag' that goes on those that kill 'children' often, too.

But I don't really care about PvP, as long as I don't have to see it.

Be Well!
Fireheart

This is also what I recall mentioned by Doctor Tyche and Tannin previously, although I don't remember the specifics about the flag being applied to gankers. As to how much of a deterrent that will provide, well that remains to be seen. It is my personal opinion that gankers aren't primarily doing it for any type of tangible reward, but mainly a psychological one so a reduction in a chance for a drop may not actually prevent people from getting ganked. Then again, it may have intended effect. As to alternatives, nothing springs immediately to mind. I don't believe that there is a great answer that will completely prevent it from happening, but I also think that something should be done as a deterrent regardless, even if I don't PvP.

deksam
deksam's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
Joined: 07/12/2017 - 10:22
I wouldn't rule out just

I wouldn't rule out just calling their moms and telling on them.

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Gankers are why I never PvP.

Gankers are why I never PvP.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 16 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Read this thread

I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

Gankers are why I never PvP.

SW:TOR Warzones...no ganking. Try that PvP

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

Gankers are why I never PvP.

SW:TOR Warzones...no ganking. Try that PvP

Thanks, but after I've been burned so many times, I no longer trust PvP enough to try it again.

notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Read this thread

Alright so I finally read this thread and I think what you're trying to say is that pvp would be handled with level brackets. That's actually really cool and I think that would help out with the whole preventing gankers thing

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

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

Read this thread

Alright so I finally read this thread and I think what you're trying to say is that pvp would be handled with level brackets. That's actually really cool and I think that would help out with the whole preventing gankers thing

Yes and there will be a bounty system for people who are at the top of the level bracket going after the lower end of the level bracket.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:
notears wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Read this thread

Alright so I finally read this thread and I think what you're trying to say is that pvp would be handled with level brackets. That's actually really cool and I think that would help out with the whole preventing gankers thing

Yes and there will be a bounty system for people who are at the top of the level bracket going after the lower end of the level bracket.

So it's like GTA online? The more a player kills lower level players the more people get bonuses for killing that player? That's a pretty good idea :]

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
The PvP mechanics thread

The PvP mechanics thread Tannim222 linked can be summarized by the first two posts in a follow up PvP thread.

"Just, well, update your kickstarter email addresses, okay? Make sure they're current?" - warcabbit

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 17 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Long story short ... (unfair)

Long story short ... (unfair) Actions (against lowbies) Have (bounty increasing) Consequences ... and the "rewards" would seem to be skewed in such a way as to actually punish, rather than ignore, "bad" behavior on the part of Players.

You might be able to win 1v1 ... but 1vWorld starts getting a little iffy.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 day ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Wow just read these multiple

Wow just read these multiple threads on pvp, pvevp, etc and I must say though I’ve never been a fan of pvp in most games you guys have given this a great deal of thought and I really like a lot of the thoughts on it. I can’t wait to see where this all ends up going!

I may have to rethink participation in pvp.

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:

Wow just read these multiple threads on pvp, pvevp, etc and I must say though I’ve never been a fan of pvp in most games you guys have given this a great deal of thought and I really like a lot of the thoughts on it. I can’t wait to see where this all ends up going!

I may have to rethink participation in pvp.

Oh I'll be trying it once CoT gets it going regardless. It was never a top priority for me in CoH but I ended up doing enough of it that it was -almost- fun. I think some of the things the CoT Devs have proposed for it might provide the 5% or 10% more "oomph" it would need to really make it something I'd actively seek out and enjoy.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

Gankers are why I never PvP.

SW:TOR Warzones...no ganking. Try that PvP

Thanks, but after I've been burned so many times, I no longer trust PvP enough to try it again.

Well, it doesn't mean you wouldn't lose. It's basically like going into a PvP zone with a team (even if you queue solo, you're going to be put on a team) and fighting it out over objectives. So, it's impossible to be ganked as it's not open world.

However, CoH had PvP zones, which meant no ganking too, so is it ganking that's the problem, which really only happens in open world pvp, or just losing?

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 day ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Personally it's not losing

Personally it's not losing that bothers me, its when I have something I'm trying to accomplish in a pvp zone and someone incessantly interferes (by repeatedly killing me) not letting me do what I'm trying to get done which usually had little or nothing to do with them. This is to say nothing of the fact that they were generally several levels above me anyway. This having been said I don't do PVP often except in straight up pvp games.

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Cyclops wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

Gankers are why I never PvP.

SW:TOR Warzones...no ganking. Try that PvP

Thanks, but after I've been burned so many times, I no longer trust PvP enough to try it again.

Well, it doesn't mean you wouldn't lose. It's basically like going into a PvP zone with a team (even if you queue solo, you're going to be put on a team) and fighting it out over objectives. So, it's impossible to be ganked as it's not open world.

However, CoH had PvP zones, which meant no ganking too, so is it ganking that's the problem, which really only happens in open world pvp, or just losing?

Ganking is when a high level character purposefully goes to an area with low level characters, who are so low level that they can't possibly beat the level 30 and that level 30 starts killing those low levels exclusevly. With the notoriety system however, that behaviour means that a bunch of level 30's are going to show up and spank that ganker into the ground. It punishes gankers by making them a more rewarding target and it rewards people who punishes gankers by giving them a lot of rewards.

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Though there might be some

Though there might be some problems with it, for one thing people might wait around until the ganker reaches maximum notoriety before stepping in, if we don't make it so the notoriety goes away only after you die then someone might just log in and out to prevent their notoriety from raising to a note worthy level, stuff like that, but there are always down sides to everything, and it will get rid of any griefer problems in the long run, even if there are problems with it in the short run.

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Cyclops wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

Gankers are why I never PvP.

SW:TOR Warzones...no ganking. Try that PvP

Thanks, but after I've been burned so many times, I no longer trust PvP enough to try it again.

Well, it doesn't mean you wouldn't lose. It's basically like going into a PvP zone with a team (even if you queue solo, you're going to be put on a team) and fighting it out over objectives. So, it's impossible to be ganked as it's not open world.

However, CoH had PvP zones, which meant no ganking too, so is it ganking that's the problem, which really only happens in open world pvp, or just losing?

Tanim just said Higher level character can kill lower level characters and the only penalty is a reward for ganking the ganker. That means anytime when player numbers are low (like at night/weekdays), those zones will be unplayable by lower lever toons, as there will be none able to punish the gankers.

It's not a fear of losing. Please do not put words in my mouth. I don't trust PvPers. I know there are many who play honorably. I have had enough bad experiences, that I hold a negative opinion of PVP. I tried in in the past and consistent bad behavior means I won't waste my time with it ever again.

I wish PvPer's all the fun in the world. The Devs are doing everything they can to make your experiences at COT to be fun and challenging. Great. I will no longer participate in PvP. You guys have fun. enjoy.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 16 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
With the level brackets in

With the level brackets in place a level you can’t engage thiose outside your bracket. So you won’t have level 30’s taking on level 1s.

Even within brackets, if you want to improve your rank and potential bonus toward rewards, you want to take on people closer to your level.

If someone at the top of the level bracket is taking on someone at the lower end of the bracket, they aren’t going to improve their rank. Meanwhile they’ll be gaining Nototiety, if they end up losing to someone at the lower end of the bracket - which can happen since the level differences won’t result in too much of an advantage, the lower level gets a win and a bonus from the Notoriety gained for improving their rank. And the higher level loses rank points, and any consecutive achievements get reset from the loss.

The system is meant to encourage playing against people nearer to your level and rank and discourage negative behavior by making it risky to go after easier targets.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Cyclops wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

Gankers are why I never PvP.

SW:TOR Warzones...no ganking. Try that PvP

Thanks, but after I've been burned so many times, I no longer trust PvP enough to try it again.

Well, it doesn't mean you wouldn't lose. It's basically like going into a PvP zone with a team (even if you queue solo, you're going to be put on a team) and fighting it out over objectives. So, it's impossible to be ganked as it's not open world.

However, CoH had PvP zones, which meant no ganking too, so is it ganking that's the problem, which really only happens in open world pvp, or just losing?

Tanim just said Higher level character can kill lower level characters and the only penalty is a reward for ganking the ganker. That means anytime when player numbers are low (like at night/weekdays), those zones will be unplayable by lower lever toons, as there will be none able to punish the gankers.

It's not a fear of losing. Please do not put words in my mouth. I don't trust PvPers. I know there are many who play honorably. I have had enough bad experiences, that I hold a negative opinion of PVP. I tried in in the past and consistent bad behavior means I won't waste my time with it ever again.

I wish PvPer's all the fun in the world. The Devs are doing everything they can to make your experiences at COT to be fun and challenging. Great. I will no longer participate in PvP. You guys have fun. enjoy.

I didn't put words into your mouth, I asked a question. Please learn to read :p

You said you had a problem with gankers. So I mentioned other forms of PvP, that stop ganking and then asked a question, is it just ganking or is it losing that's the problem. :p

notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

With the level brackets in place a level you can’t engage thiose outside your bracket. So you won’t have level 30’s taking on level 1s.

Even within brackets, if you want to improve your rank and potential bonus toward rewards, you want to take on people closer to your level.

If someone at the top of the level bracket is taking on someone at the lower end of the bracket, they aren’t going to improve their rank. Meanwhile they’ll be gaining Nototiety, if they end up losing to someone at the lower end of the bracket - which can happen since the level differences won’t result in too much of an advantage, the lower level gets a win and a bonus from the Notoriety gained for improving their rank. And the higher level loses rank points, and any consecutive achievements get reset from the loss.

The system is meant to encourage playing against people nearer to your level and rank and discourage negative behavior by making it risky to go after easier targets.

Yeah I like that idea, being a level 1 fighting a level 5 is a lot more interesting than fighting a level 30, a level 1 fighting a level 30 is like insatn death, a level 1 fighting a level 5 however feels more like a surprise boss fight, and multiple 1 fighting a 5 is a lot more fair than multiple 1's fighting a level 30. Heck far as I'm concerned a level 5 fighting level 1's isn't really ganking, it's just like a fun mini boss.

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
notears wrote:
notears wrote:

Though there might be some problems with it, for one thing people might wait around until the ganker reaches maximum notoriety before stepping in, if we don't make it so the notoriety goes away only after you die then someone might just log in and out to prevent their notoriety from raising to a note worthy level, stuff like that, but there are always down sides to everything, and it will get rid of any griefer problems in the long run, even if there are problems with it in the short run.

The log in/out thing reminds me of PvP in Ragnarok Online private servers. A class had a really powerful ability with a long cooldown, so they'd set it up outside a PvP area, pop in, use the skill, probably one shot someone, then log in and out to do it again.

I never understood those people.

Hopefully logging out and in doesn't wipe notoriety in CoT. Make them carry that till they die. Gives you an even less reason for targetting lowbies.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

I didn't put words into your mouth, I asked a question. Please learn to read :p

You said you had a problem with gankers. So I mentioned other forms of PvP, that stop ganking and then asked a question, is it just ganking or is it losing that's the problem. :p

I apologize if I offended you. I respect you way too much to argue/fight with you.

To answer your question, it is neither ganking nor losing that prevents me from playing in PvP. The trust is gone. It doesn't matter what safeguards are in place, I will never play PvP. I understand some people may look down on me if I don't PvP. I don't care. I can enjoy PvE, I can team up, raid and do everything thats fun in PvE. I'm just here to play the game and not entertain unsupervised kids.

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

With the level brackets in place a level you can’t engage thiose outside your bracket. So you won’t have level 30’s taking on level 1s.

Even within brackets, if you want to improve your rank and potential bonus toward rewards, you want to take on people closer to your level.

If someone at the top of the level bracket is taking on someone at the lower end of the bracket, they aren’t going to improve their rank. Meanwhile they’ll be gaining Nototiety, if they end up losing to someone at the lower end of the bracket - which can happen since the level differences won’t result in too much of an advantage, the lower level gets a win and a bonus from the Notoriety gained for improving their rank. And the higher level loses rank points, and any consecutive achievements get reset from the loss.

The system is meant to encourage playing against people nearer to your level and rank and discourage negative behavior by making it risky to go after easier targets.

Thank you for the clarification.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

Gankers are why I never PvP.

SW:TOR Warzones...no ganking. Try that PvP

To be fair, while there isn't ganking, if you're going to queue up for WZs in SW:TOR, there are some things you should be made aware of: do NOT go into the ranked queues alone. PvP guilds pre-mades use those for repping up, and had started to spill over into the unranked queue due to lack of ranked activity. And if you don't immediately know how their strategies work or know the lingo, you'll probably get kicked. And if you don't get kicked, the manner in which you will be talked to by your teammates leaves something to be desired. Mind you, I PvPed for about a month straight to re-unlock my mainhand about a year ago, so things may have changed since then but I find it highly unlikely.

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:

Wow just read these multiple threads on pvp, pvevp, etc and I must say though I’ve never been a fan of pvp in most games you guys have given this a great deal of thought and I really like a lot of the thoughts on it. I can’t wait to see where this all ends up going!

I may have to rethink participation in pvp.

It has the possibility of providing great user triggered content / challenges.
You won't be forced to choose one side or the other at character creation (i.e. horde/alliance, jedi/sith, Starfleet/everyone else). You establish a side via your active choices for alliances in game and they can/will change over time. Plus there won't be just Red vs Blue. You will have red vs orange vs yellow vs plaid vs gray vs chartreuse vs green vs blue. It allows for a Civil War between "heroes". It allows for competing crime syndicates.

It all depends on how the League is setup.

"Just, well, update your kickstarter email addresses, okay? Make sure they're current?" - warcabbit

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 14 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
I do like how the more of a

I do like how the more of a bully you are, the more notoriety you build up. Notoriety doesn't do anything for you, but it makes you a fatter target for other players; since the rewards you get from PvP increase with the amount of notoriety your opponent has. This makes attacking lower-powered players a bit less desirable since doing so puts a kick-me sign on your own back.

Of course, that will beget an optimization cycle by some people to deliberately build the notoriety of one character by attacking their underpowered friends' alts who have nothing to lose. All so that another designated character can in turn slaughter the first fattened cow for the rewards. Rinse and repeat until you're done farming and then switch characters and start again.


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.
notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Planet10 wrote:
Planet10 wrote:
rookslide wrote:

Wow just read these multiple threads on pvp, pvevp, etc and I must say though I’ve never been a fan of pvp in most games you guys have given this a great deal of thought and I really like a lot of the thoughts on it. I can’t wait to see where this all ends up going!

I may have to rethink participation in pvp.

It has the possibility of providing great user triggered content / challenges.
You won't be forced to choose one side or the other at character creation (i.e. horde/alliance, jedi/sith, Starfleet/everyone else). You establish a side via your active choices for alliances in game and they can/will change over time. Plus there won't be just Red vs Blue. You will have red vs orange vs yellow vs plaid vs gray vs chartreuse vs green vs blue. It allows for a Civil War between "heroes". It allows for competing crime syndicates.

It all depends on how the League is setup.

Yeah we definatly need something where a villain notices that someone else is on their turf and goes after him, or a true blue American superhero tries to go after a punisher like vigilante because they don't want him taking the law into his own hands.

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

I do like how the more of a bully you are, the more notoriety you build up. Notoriety doesn't do anything for you, but it makes you a fatter target for other players; since the rewards you get from PvP increase with the amount of notoriety your opponent has. This makes attacking lower-powered players a bit less desirable since doing so puts a kick-me sign on your own back.

Of course, that will beget an optimization cycle by some people to deliberately build the notoriety of one character by attacking their underpowered friends' alts who have nothing to lose. All so that another designated character can in turn slaughter the first fattened cow for the rewards. Rinse and repeat until you're done farming and then switch characters and start again.

Instead of making "PvP Notoriety" something that could be farmed/exploited it ought to simply apply a NEGATIVE effect to the character who has it. Like each time you "build up" a "point" of Notoriety it applies a temporary -1% DEF penalty debuff to you that lasts 24 hours (due to your inner karmic feelings of self-doubt and guilt for being an asshat perhaps?). This would let a player use a character to occasionally "punch down" if desired but would make the given character effectively unplayable if they chose to use it to gank a bunch of lowbie victims all within a short period of time.

Obviously with this version of "PvP Notoriety" it would have to employ a pretty large threshold to be fair (i.e. a character only earns PvP Notoriety if they kill someone more than 10 levels lower than they are).

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

Gankers are why I never PvP.

SW:TOR Warzones...no ganking. Try that PvP

To be fair, while there isn't ganking, if you're going to queue up for WZs in SW:TOR, there are some things you should be made aware of: do NOT go into the ranked queues alone. PvP guilds pre-mades use those for repping up, and had started to spill over into the unranked queue due to lack of ranked activity. And if you don't immediately know how their strategies work or know the lingo, you'll probably get kicked. And if you don't get kicked, the manner in which you will be talked to by your teammates leaves something to be desired. Mind you, I PvPed for about a month straight to re-unlock my mainhand about a year ago, so things may have changed since then but I find it highly unlikely.

Ranked, as far as I've seen, is just Go Berserk. Not sure if it was ever different, but that's all it's been since I started queueing solo for ranked.

There are some testy people in them still, always is, but there is in PvE too. However, the real way to help keep that down, is just don't queue with low gear and do a semblance of working as a team (ie...target focus when needed, instead of everyone off on their own target).

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

I do like how the more of a bully you are, the more notoriety you build up. Notoriety doesn't do anything for you, but it makes you a fatter target for other players; since the rewards you get from PvP increase with the amount of notoriety your opponent has. This makes attacking lower-powered players a bit less desirable since doing so puts a kick-me sign on your own back.

Of course, that will beget an optimization cycle by some people to deliberately build the notoriety of one character by attacking their underpowered friends' alts who have nothing to lose. All so that another designated character can in turn slaughter the first fattened cow for the rewards. Rinse and repeat until you're done farming and then switch characters and start again.

Instead of making "PvP Notoriety" something that could be farmed/exploited it ought to simply apply a NEGATIVE effect to the character who has it. Like each time you "build up" a "point" of Notoriety it applies a temporary -1% DEF penalty debuff to you that lasts 24 hours (due to your inner karmic feelings of self-doubt and guilt for being an asshat perhaps?). This would let a player use a character to occasionally "punch down" if desired but would make the given character effectively unplayable if they chose to use it to gank a bunch of lowbie victims all within a short period of time.

Obviously with this version of "PvP Notoriety" it would have to employ a pretty large threshold to be fair (i.e. a character only earns PvP Notoriety if they kill someone more than 10 levels lower than they are).

Don't call that karma. Just call it, "We're punishing you for being a prick." :p

chase
chase's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/23/2013 - 11:11
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

I do like how the more of a bully you are, the more notoriety you build up. Notoriety doesn't do anything for you, but it makes you a fatter target for other players; since the rewards you get from PvP increase with the amount of notoriety your opponent has. This makes attacking lower-powered players a bit less desirable since doing so puts a kick-me sign on your own back.

Of course, that will beget an optimization cycle by some people to deliberately build the notoriety of one character by attacking their underpowered friends' alts who have nothing to lose. All so that another designated character can in turn slaughter the first fattened cow for the rewards. Rinse and repeat until you're done farming and then switch characters and start again.

Not only that, but such penalties only work assuming that the person puts value IN those rewards.

A few years ago (maybe a decade, I'm getting old) I attended a conference where the presenters discussed the difficulties managing certain PvP issues. In one memorable tale, a large group of folk organized a ganking extravaganza on 4chan, IIRC. They worked collectively to make entire zones all but unplayable to others. When one moderator noted how the behavior was hurting the GRIEFERS too (no ranking, advancement, high bounty for, and lack of reward) the member replied, "Your problem is YOU'RE playing [the MMO]. I'm playing 4chan" implying that their penalties were meaningless. They scored "wins" and "reward" differently.

Having dozens of max-level players eventually drive them from the zone was just a thrill, knowing how many peoples game time they thoroughly disrupted. For the classic negative attention-seeker, they REVELED in that.

I don't have a total solution but start by applying penalties that discourage or prevent the unwanted behavior

  • Want to prevent people from making a "ganking" character only to log out when notoriety gets high? Or intentionally make a high-notoriety "beacon" character to encourage players to spend hours pursuing him... just to log out? Apply the bounty to the PLAYER's global, not the character. Don't give him an easy escape.
  • Discourage farming the same lower-level player: (or make rematches more interesting) by applying an aura power on the victim that PvP debuffs the attacker('s team) when he's nearby.
  • Discourage attacking foes that have HP diminished by NPC's by "fury" like PvP-buffs for fighting NPC's. The more risk you've taken fighting NPC's the more dangerous you are to that stalker watching your health bar go down. It even encourages risk-taking gameplay (you WANT TO battle the npcs and then try to engage your foes... even if your HP are still low, because of the buff...)
  • Discourage general ganking (high-level vs low-level) by putting a debuff on the ganker proportional to the level difference of his victims
  • Another (admittedly counter-intuitive) method is the "the friend of my friend is my aggro magnet"- a person ambushing a player engaged in PvE immediately gets a sizable portion of the target's aggro proportional to the target's remaining hp. No, it doesn't make sense, but it makes balance. well, not balance... but fun and interesting imbalances.
  • Don't reward someone engaging in community-destructive PvP with hunters tracking them down. My reward for destructive PvP is more available PvP challenges seeking me out? Awesome. Instead, put them in a "timeout" mode where they can't engage with anyone.
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 16 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Penalties won’t really work

Penalties won’t really work that way.
Neither will the “kill the fattened cow” cycle.
Because the fattened cow themselves would have to be in on the cycle to keep the rinse / repeat part.

Problem being, losing cuts off your achievements - which takes away your bonus towards rewards.

Losing reduces your rank. Which lowers your bonus towards rewards and makes your character “ worth less” in PvP.

And sure, you can set up a couple of cycles to artificially raise your lower level / ranked character’s ranks. If you know how to pvp then wou will be able to remain competitive at that rank.

But if you aren’t a good PvPer, you could find yourself in situations where you are outclassed by more experienced pvpers in your leve / rank. Essentially setting yourself up for losing.

Really the abuse (it isn’t an exploit which is takeoff advantage of something broken or a bug), of notoriety has minimal negative impact in over all play.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
chase
chase's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/23/2013 - 11:11
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

With the level brackets in place a level you can’t engage thiose outside your bracket. So you won’t have level 30’s taking on level 1s.

Even within brackets, if you want to improve your rank and potential bonus toward rewards, you want to take on people closer to your level.

If someone at the top of the level bracket is taking on someone at the lower end of the bracket, they aren’t going to improve their rank. Meanwhile they’ll be gaining Nototiety, if they end up losing to someone at the lower end of the bracket - which can happen since the level differences won’t result in too much of an advantage, the lower level gets a win and a bonus from the Notoriety gained for improving their rank. And the higher level loses rank points, and any consecutive achievements get reset from the loss.

The system is meant to encourage playing against people nearer to your level and rank and discourage negative behavior by making it risky to go after easier targets.

Thanks.

I do like this kind of structure, but I do intend to try to break it. Maybe form an Avenging Carebear Clone Zerg Brigade (ACC-ZEB? need a better acronym):
Armies of undersized characters with mixed stuffed-animal / insectoid parts swarming the PvP zones at the lowest possible level to engage in PvP. They seek out people engaged in battle and try to get included in an AOE attack, establishing the other as an aggressor, then they swarm. At worst, their opponent gets huge boosts to their notoriety and the zerg carebears get a trip to the rezzer. At best, they take the target down by sheer numbers and damage that player's PvP status.

If successful, just imagine the bizzarro-world forum posts complaining of the lowbie carebear gankers ruining PvP...

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 16 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
I don’t suspect it will be

I don’t suspect it will be very successful in long term.
First, leve brakcers restrict the engagements. AoE builds in PvP tend to be an exception rather than rulle. A smart player can decide to not use AoEs or disengage,

And we haven’t discussed dynamic grouping code for modifying rank...


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
chase
chase's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/23/2013 - 11:11
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

I don’t suspect it will be very successful in long term.
First, leve brakcers restrict the engagements. AoE builds in PvP tend to be an exception rather than rulle. A smart player can decide to not use AoEs or disengage,

And we haven’t discussed dynamic grouping code for modifying rank...

Well, I don't expect you to make it easy for me. The best part of pvp is that at the meta-level it's really PvD (players vs dev). Devs got the power, players have the numbers and the time.

Amerikatt
Amerikatt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/27/2013 - 08:54
The simplest way in which to

The simplest way in which to avoid ganking is simply not to have PvP in the first place!

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Developer
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
Amerikatt wrote:
Amerikatt wrote:

The simplest way in which to avoid ganking is simply not to have PvP in the first place!

Or how about the people that don't like PVP just don't play it?

-----------

Graphic Designer

Sand_Trout
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 4 months ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/22/2014 - 22:17
This might imply things that

This might imply things that aren't true about me, but after playing EvE Online for a few years, I say the best way to deal with Gankers is to Embrace the Gank.

By this I mean rather than try to mitigate or reduce predation within the PVP areas, make it worthwhile to put yourself at risk of being prey, but also enough risk from losing that hunters need to worry about being baited.

I'd honestly rather have Null-Sec ruthlessness that than SWTOR arena-style battlegrounds. If I wanted to play small-team combat, there's dozens, if not hundreds of other games for that that are designed around that sort of gameplay, and thus will have better offerings for it. On the other hand, MMOs are the only format capable of supporting the ruthless paranoia of predatory, open-world combat. This would only apply to the designated PvP zones, with the possible exception of exceptionally high bounties which can be claimed anywhere, including designated PvE areas (similar to EvE pirates).

That said, PvP in a game like this should be understood as a side-game, and the PvE aspect is the core of the game.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
What is this game that has

What is this game that has small-team combat, where you make your own character? O.O

notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

I don’t suspect it will be very successful in long term.
First, leve brakcers restrict the engagements. AoE builds in PvP tend to be an exception rather than rulle. A smart player can decide to not use AoEs or disengage,

And we haven’t discussed dynamic grouping code for modifying rank...

Well in all honesty, I'd rather have level brackets than nothing at all. I really don't want to go see CoT's PvP server go through the same things that DCUO did.

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Amerikatt wrote:

The simplest way in which to avoid ganking is simply not to have PvP in the first place!

Or how about the people that don't like PVP just don't play it?

Well these complaints aren't really from people who don't want to PvP, these types of complaints are from people who want to PvP but can't because you're level 1 and there's a guy outside who's level 30 who's sole mission seems to be making sure you can't play the game

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

chase
chase's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/23/2013 - 11:11
notears wrote:
notears wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Amerikatt wrote:

The simplest way in which to avoid ganking is simply not to have PvP in the first place!

Or how about the people that don't like PVP just don't play it?

Or those that see PvP more akin to a friendly game of softball in the park-- where you want to win, but you want everyone to ultimately have fun...as opposed to the few that want to revel in the Lamentations of others.

PvP is great, but open zone PvP means everyone must choose between tolerating the lowest lowlife in the zone or leave.

I much prefer player defined leagues where people can agree on standards of play.

Well these complaints aren't really from people who don't want to PvP, these types of complaints are from people who want to PvP but can't because you're level 1 and there's a guy outside who's level 30 who's sole mission seems to be making sure you can't play the game

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Developer
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
I pvped full time and never

I pvped full time and never experienced ganking. Did a team jump me from time to time? Yes. Did I do the same to others? Yes.

Like Sand_Trout said, just embrace it.

-----------

Graphic Designer

notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

I pvped full time and never experienced ganking. Did a team jump me from time to time? Yes. Did I do the same to others? Yes.

Like Sand_Trout said, just embrace it.

Well in CoX the pvp was in a separate area where everyone was bumped up to the same level. That's not really the same thing a open world PvP, it's a whole different kind of beast, heck most games don't even have true open world PvP. It's mostly a set thing off to the side, not really something that's open world PvP, and open PvP really only works without limitations in games where everyone is pretty much the same like DayZ or GTA online. In open world games where levels exist there have to be measures set in place to make that kind of thing work, and since I like the idea of going along on my missions when suddenly a PC hero shows up to foil my plans and I actually have a chance to beat him rather then it being a curb stomp battle, I want to make this open world PvP system where levels exist work.

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
chase wrote:
chase wrote:
notears wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Amerikatt wrote:

The simplest way in which to avoid ganking is simply not to have PvP in the first place!

Or how about the people that don't like PVP just don't play it?

Or those that see PvP more akin to a friendly game of softball in the park-- where you want to win, but you want everyone to ultimately have fun...as opposed to the few that want to revel in the Lamentations of others.

PvP is great, but open zone PvP means everyone must choose between tolerating the lowest lowlife in the zone or leave.

I much prefer player defined leagues where people can agree on standards of play.

Well these complaints aren't really from people who don't want to PvP, these types of complaints are from people who want to PvP but can't because you're level 1 and there's a guy outside who's level 30 who's sole mission seems to be making sure you can't play the game

Well to each their own eh? Personally I want there to be an arena and a pvp server.

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
It is probably best for MWM

It is probably best for MWM to just outright explain all of the pvp details so it is clear how it will function. The linked thread meanders a lot and it is difficult to get a clear picture of how it will work. It sounds like MWM is making an effort to keep pvp competitive and even (but might end up being draconian in its implementation based on the descriptions we have so far).

So far everyone in this thread is using their past fears and experiences to color how they will hate pvp or avoid it. Keep in mind that pvp in CoH was tacked on after release, so they painted themselves into a corner on how it could be handled. Most other games frame their pvp as one side vs another side. There is no social dynamic to the experience (you choose a side at character creation). MWM is creating a system where we define the sides and how many sides exist. Plus we can change or merge sides as we see fit. MWM is baking pvp into the game from the beginning (which is the only way it can ever be successful).

If people just want the PvE experience, there is nothing that will prevent or hinder them from living that dream. The PvP experience is purely an opt-in choice that can be opted out of by the player's own volition. The fear that someone will get 'ganked' is valid one if you go in cold (not understanding the parameters or player constructs).

There is a long term solution and a short term solution to ganking under the MWM plan (and a third option).
The pvp fear: A collection of players (league/team/group/solo) decide to gank
Short Term >> Make a distress call via whatever communication method to the other players in the phase. Someone will respond. And the more often someone helps out, the more likely it is that you will help someone in a similar situation in the future.
Long Term >> If this collection of players make it a habit of griefing, the other Leagues can modify their membership to exclude them. This would make them a minority faction (making them a legal target for the majority of the server population).
Option 3 >> This is a temporary solution, but determine what League(s) they are in and join one that bubbles up. That will immediately disqualify you as a legal target for them to attack.

"Just, well, update your kickstarter email addresses, okay? Make sure they're current?" - warcabbit

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Wolfgang8565 wrote:
Wolfgang8565 wrote:

I pvped full time and never experienced ganking. Did a team jump me from time to time? Yes. Did I do the same to others? Yes.

Like Sand_Trout said, just embrace it.

Just to be a little picky about this as long as you were "actively PvPing" you technically could -not- be ganked. The usual definition of "being ganked" implies the "victim" of the ganking was NOT involved (or at least not wanting to be involved) in the PvP.

The problem here was that you had people who wanted to be in an open PvP zone (to do whatever) yet wanted (again for whatever reason) to NOT be involved with PvP. That was the basic disconnect that really caused like 99% of the angst surrounding PvP in CoH.

For full disclosure I was always more of a badger than a PvPer when I went into the CoH PvP zones. Despite that I NEVER ONCE openly "complained" about being attacked while in those zones because (as you implied) I at least accepted/tolerated that I was physically in a PvP zone. It would have been absolutely silly to expect that I should have been "left alone" to do my own thing while standing in a place designed for PvP. I never once consider myself a "care bear victim" or that I had the RIGHT to be left alone so even when I technically got "sneak attacked" I never considered it a strict ganking because I always knew whatever I was doing I could always be attacked at any moment. I was always prepared for it and rarely actually got killed in those situations - actually more often than not I would knock my would-be assassin's dick in the dirt and laugh at them. ;)

So all I'm saying is that while there were a bunch of whiny care bears out there there were also some of us who were neither "victims" nor "participants". Some of us simply tolerated the PvP going on around us and did what we needed to get done. Just remember that "ganking" requires a certain point of view - if you considered yourself a "victim" of PvP then you got ganked; if you actively played PvP then that word is meaningless.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 14 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Interesting discussion. I

Interesting discussion. I guess the definition of gank is not quite as established as some of us would have thought.

For example, I always thought that a Ganking was any unfair engagement perpetrated to take the greatest advantage of the target at its weakest or least prepared moment.

And any negative connotations of that would depend upon the relative expectations of the observer.

When I PvP, for instance, I always wait for my opponents to heal up or finish gathering resources before I attack. But that's because my personal sense of pride would be dissatisfied if I didn't.

If someone about my level ambushed me after a fight or while gathering resources, I still wouldn't call it a gank. But if that same someone was significantly more powerful or there was a number of them, then I would call it a gank.

In CoT, we won't have resources to farm, we won't have PvE players trying to get through, and with the level lens system in place, we probably won't have significant level disparity either. But with the system MWM has in place, fair fights will be discouraged nonetheless. I fully expect that groups of players will only pop into the PvP instance after they assemble in the PvE side and are assured they have enough collective power to be on the giving end of smackdowns.

We will see what kind of self organizing social structures this will lead to.


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.
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Interesting discussion. I guess the definition of gank is not quite as established as some of us would have thought.

For example, I always thought that a Ganking was any unfair engagement perpetrated to take the greatest advantage of the target at its weakest or least prepared moment.

And any negative connotations of that would depend upon the relative expectations of the observer.

I don't completely dispute your general definition of the term. I would just quibble that (at least in my experience) the term "gank" always carried a negative connotation for the "victim" and almost always involved one party who assumed everyone involved was willingly PvPing (or didn't care either way) while the other party oftentimes didn't or wasn't.

If you have two people actively PvPing against each other and at some point one person smacks the other while at their "least prepared moment" you could call that dirty, unsportsmanlike, dickish and so on but I doubt I'd actually use the word "gank" for that because if nothing else the "victim" in that scenario was still actively aware of the other guy and was willingly engaged in PvP regardless of being an idiot for letting him/herself be killed. There's no negative connotation of that being a "backstab" or "assassination". It was a clean kill even if one party took "unfair advantage" of the other's momentary weakness - in this case clean as far as both parties being willing participants.

Again I'm not going to debate the legitimacy of someone claiming the right to be left unmolested in a PvP zone. Personally I don't think such "care bears" have a leg to stand on trying to defend that position. But as long as you have a person running around an open PvP zone who "thinks" they should not be subjected to getting jumped by anyone else then when they are jumped that would be a "ganking" in my book.

Bottomline care bears get ganked; people who are actively PvPing can't be ganked by each other effectively by definition. Now if two people are dueling and a third person swoops in and snipes one of the duelers then -that- could be considered a ganking. Hope that makes sense.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
I suspect the fact that a

I suspect the fact that a person can enter the PvP phase from anywhere, even the public toilet in the bus station, may keep the most grievous 'ganking' from happening. There is unlikely to be a spawning point to camp at, other than the local hospital.

Be Well!
Fireheart

notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Planet10 wrote:
Planet10 wrote:

It is probably best for MWM to just outright explain all of the pvp details so it is clear how it will function. The linked thread meanders a lot and it is difficult to get a clear picture of how it will work. It sounds like MWM is making an effort to keep pvp competitive and even (but might end up being draconian in its implementation based on the descriptions we have so far).

So far everyone in this thread is using their past fears and experiences to color how they will hate pvp or avoid it. Keep in mind that pvp in CoH was tacked on after release, so they painted themselves into a corner on how it could be handled. Most other games frame their pvp as one side vs another side. There is no social dynamic to the experience (you choose a side at character creation). MWM is creating a system where we define the sides and how many sides exist. Plus we can change or merge sides as we see fit. MWM is baking pvp into the game from the beginning (which is the only way it can ever be successful).

If people just want the PvE experience, there is nothing that will prevent or hinder them from living that dream. The PvP experience is purely an opt-in choice that can be opted out of by the player's own volition. The fear that someone will get 'ganked' is valid one if you go in cold (not understanding the parameters or player constructs).

There is a long term solution and a short term solution to ganking under the MWM plan (and a third option).
The pvp fear: A collection of players (league/team/group/solo) decide to gank
Short Term >> Make a distress call via whatever communication method to the other players in the phase. Someone will respond. And the more often someone helps out, the more likely it is that you will help someone in a similar situation in the future.
Long Term >> If this collection of players make it a habit of griefing, the other Leagues can modify their membership to exclude them. This would make them a minority faction (making them a legal target for the majority of the server population).
Option 3 >> This is a temporary solution, but determine what League(s) they are in and join one that bubbles up. That will immediately disqualify you as a legal target for them to attack.

Relying on the players to enforce PvP rules isn't going to help. For one thing, Gankers are always going to create their own niche rather than find one made up of other people. They'll make up their own groups and have fun with those groups, and also sending up a distress signal doesn't really work because there's not really going to be anyone actually showing up, and if there is, there are already10 level50's in a zone meant for level ones.

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

I suspect the fact that a person can enter the PvP phase from anywhere, even the public toilet in the bus station, may keep the most grievous 'ganking' from happening. There is unlikely to be a spawning point to camp at, other than the local hospital.

Be Well!
Fireheart

TBH most of my talk about "ganking" was relative to CoH. I honestly don't think it'll be much of an issue with the way they are going to be handling PvP in CoT. People who allow themselves to get "ganked" in CoT will basically only have themselves to blame, if they didn't already. ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Interesting discussion. I guess the definition of gank is not quite as established as some of us would have thought.

For example, I always thought that a Ganking was any unfair engagement perpetrated to take the greatest advantage of the target at its weakest or least prepared moment.

And any negative connotations of that would depend upon the relative expectations of the observer.

I don't completely dispute your general definition of the term. I would just quibble that (at least in my experience) the term "gank" always carried a negative connotation for the "victim" and almost always involved one party who assumed everyone involved was willingly PvPing (or didn't care either way) while the other party oftentimes didn't or wasn't.

If you have two people actively PvPing against each other and at some point one person smacks the other while at their "least prepared moment" you could call that dirty, unsportsmanlike, dickish and so on but I doubt I'd actually use the word "gank" for that because if nothing else the "victim" in that scenario was still actively aware of the other guy and was willingly engaged in PvP regardless of being an idiot for letting him/herself be killed. There's no negative connotation of that being a "backstab" or "assassination". It was a clean kill even if one party took "unfair advantage" of the other's momentary weakness - in this case clean as far as both parties being willing participants.

Again I'm not going to debate the legitimacy of someone claiming the right to be left unmolested in a PvP zone. Personally I don't think such "care bears" have a leg to stand on trying to defend that position. But as long as you have a person running around an open PvP zone who "thinks" they should not be subjected to getting jumped by anyone else then when they are jumped that would be a "ganking" in my book.

Bottomline care bears get ganked; people who are actively PvPing can't be ganked by each other effectively by definition. Now if two people are dueling and a third person swoops in and snipes one of the duelers then -that- could be considered a ganking. Hope that makes sense.

The Ganking I'm talking about never happened in CoX, because the ganking I'm talking couldn't happen in CoX. Everytime you fought someone in PvP you where on the same level, I'm not talking about someone swooping in while your dueling someone, or groups of people looking for straglers. I'm talking about a level 50 showing up in a zone meant purely for people who are 1-3 and then killing 30 people there without ever breaking a sweat because he's level 50 and the level 1's can't possibly have a chance against that. That is what I'm talking about. Not groups of people in PvP areas or a dual between two people and a third one coming along but rather a case of "I'm level 1 and I want to play the game but there's a level 50 just outside that wants to grind me like a dog on his owners leg", groups of pvpers in a zone where everyone is the same level are fine, dueling a player and then another player showing up is fine. What isn't fine is a level 50 taking out level 1's in a level 1 zone.

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 day ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Ahhh yeah higher levels could

Errr not sure that’s true ....

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:

Errr not sure that’s true ....

Well it was true when dcuo came out, open PvP servers in games with levels need certain requirments to make them just as fair as the PvP zones in CoX. Heck Age of Wushu has open world PvP as mandatory, but the thing with that is that, that game has level brackets so some random level 50 jackhole doesn't come in and ruin everyone's day

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
notears wrote:
notears wrote:

What isn't fine is a level 50 taking out level 1's in a level 1 zone.

From what has been said, this won't be likely. First the level 1 PCs have to be in the PvP phase. Then the level 50 has to figure out how to get past the tiering rules in order to attack them when they are so many tiers below the level 50.

Of course, I could be mistaken about the intent of the tiers. If they only reduce or eliminate rewards, they won't stop those who are playing a different game on our servers.

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
.
Avatar courtesy of Satellite9 Irezoomie

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 day ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Yeah but I can remember when

Yeah but I can remember when playing COH where I had a level 24ish character that was inundated by a level 40 a couple times until I just bailed from the zone. I consider that a large enough level gap to be slightly unfair.

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Foradain wrote:
Foradain wrote:
notears wrote:

What isn't fine is a level 50 taking out level 1's in a level 1 zone.

From what has been said, this won't be likely. First the level 1 PCs have to be in the PvP phase. Then the level 50 has to figure out how to get past the tiering rules in order to attack them when they are so many tiers below the level 50.

Of course, I could be mistaken about the intent of the tiers. If they only reduce or eliminate rewards, they won't stop those who are playing a different game on our servers.

yeah I know. thought everyone was saying that we do nothing about it including getting rid of the level brackets. Seems someone came in here seeking to complain about those annoying people who complained whenever they lost in a PvP zone, and then we all got caught up in it. Personally I like the way PvP is going to be. They made an interesting meta game with the different ways any player can cause themselves not to be hit that's interesting in both PvP and PvE, and there's still the excitement of the occasional level 5 showing up.

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:

Yeah but I can remember when playing COH where I had a level 24ish character that was inundated by a level 40 a couple times until I just bailed from the zone. I consider that a large enough level gap to be slightly unfair.

It could have been worst than just the differences in levels. For example that level 40 guy might have been fully min/maxed with all sorts of special/PvP IO sets whereas your level 24 character might have just had whatever random enhancements you could have found. The sheer imbalance between a fully optimized built-for-PvP monster versus an unoptimized "average" character could be so great it might as well been a level 1 versus a level 50.

Having said that I never once assumed the Devs of CoT would literally let level 50s and level 1s interact in PvP AS level 50s and level 1s. That'd simply be silly on the face of it.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 day ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
I guarantee the level 24 had

I guarantee the level 24 had whatever drops he had picked up! Lol

Regardless, I think COT devs have much better forward thinking attitudes about several such issues than many other games demonstrate.

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Ganking originally meant

EDIT- I should clarify, 'gank' in it's earliest form meant 'gang take' but in video games it meant 'gang kill' due to the nature of combat interactions in games.
Ganking originally meant 'gang kill', as in a group attacking a lone foe or smaller group (one side did not have to be a PCs). Now it means any situation in which one side of players (the gankers) engages in a combat where the other side of players (the ganked) have no reasonable hope of winning. It could be due to level differences, group sizes, equipped gear or any of a multitude of other situations. It's not just about having an advantage, it's about having an overwhelming advantage.
It evolved into it's current form largely because of WoW's multiplayer, or I should say it gained popularity because of WoW as the term was around in the early days of EQ.

You cannot stop the current definition of ganking in the PvP that CoT is going to have because in open world PvP there is very little incentive and few restrictions that ensure a balanced engagement.
Open world PvP is designed to be a cut throat, survival of the fittest experience. To succeed in that type of PvP you must seek every advantage and exploit every weakness because that is what your opponents can (and most often) do. Open world PvP isn't broken or hurt by ganking because that type of PvP is designed to encourage that ganking behavior. Just as a 'King of the Hill' type of PvP encourages the leaders to camp as part of it's design, Open world PvP encourages the overwhelming advantage/exploit behavior of ganking as part of it's design.

I have many issues with open world PvP but, as many have pointed out, ganking is simply the type of PvP it is.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Ganking originally meant 'gang kill', as in a group attacking a lone foe or smaller group (one side did not have to be a PCs). Now it means any situation in which one side of players (the gankers) engages in a combat where the other side of players (the ganked) have no reasonable hope of winning. It could be due to level differences, group sizes, equipped gear or any of a multitude of other situations. It's not just about having an advantage, it's about having an overwhelming advantage.
It evolved into it's current form largely because of WoW's multiplayer, or I should say it gained popularity because of WoW as the term was around in the early days of EQ.

You cannot stop the current definition of ganking in the PvP that CoT is going to have because in open world PvP there is very little incentive and few restrictions that ensure a balanced engagement.
Open world PvP is designed to be a cut throat, survival of the fittest experience. To succeed in that type of PvP you must seek every advantage and exploit every weakness because that is what your opponents can (and most often) do. Open world PvP isn't broken or hurt by ganking because that type of PvP is designed to encourage that ganking behavior. Just as a 'King of the Hill' type of PvP encourages the leaders to camp as part of it's design, Open world PvP encourages the overwhelming advantage/exploit behavior of ganking as part of it's design.

I have many issues with open world PvP but, as many have pointed out, ganking is simply the type of PvP it is.

Yeah I think we're still collectively getting a bit sidetracked by using the term "gank" in slightly different ways.

What actually matters in terms of CoT is that for better or worse (I'll let the individual reader decide which applies to them) there will no longer be ANY reason for a given player to have to risk/suffer entering a PvP zone in order to accomplish anything in the game they want to do. There will no longer be any spot on any zone map where a person will have to accept being in an open PvP environment just to be able to stand on that spot. That's the game-changer here (no pun intended).

So you can decide for yourself if "ganking" is something that can legitimately/generically happen to any PvPer for any reason or if it's solely a pejorative term used to describe the insta-killing of care bear badgers caught alone in PvP zones by PvP asshats. Ultimately that "definition" doesn't matter whichever side of that issue you're on.

P.S. If this game ends up offering PvP based badges anyway (for like numbers of PvP kills, etc.) then I guess the care bears are still screwed. *shrugs*

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 14 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

EDIT- I should clarify, 'gank' in it's earliest form meant 'gang take' but in video games it meant 'gang kill' due to the nature of combat interactions in games.
Ganking originally meant 'gang kill', as in a group attacking a lone foe or smaller group (one side did not have to be a PCs). Now it means any situation in which one side of players (the gankers) engages in a combat where the other side of players (the ganked) have no reasonable hope of winning. It could be due to level differences, group sizes, equipped gear or any of a multitude of other situations. It's not just about having an advantage, it's about having an overwhelming advantage.
It evolved into it's current form largely because of WoW's multiplayer, or I should say it gained popularity because of WoW as the term was around in the early days of EQ.

You cannot stop the current definition of ganking in the PvP that CoT is going to have because in open world PvP there is very little incentive and few restrictions that ensure a balanced engagement.
Open world PvP is designed to be a cut throat, survival of the fittest experience. To succeed in that type of PvP you must seek every advantage and exploit every weakness because that is what your opponents can (and most often) do. Open world PvP isn't broken or hurt by ganking because that type of PvP is designed to encourage that ganking behavior. Just as a 'King of the Hill' type of PvP encourages the leaders to camp as part of it's design, Open world PvP encourages the overwhelming advantage/exploit behavior of ganking as part of it's design.

I have many issues with open world PvP but, as many have pointed out, ganking is simply the type of PvP it is.

well put


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.
notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

EDIT- I should clarify, 'gank' in it's earliest form meant 'gang take' but in video games it meant 'gang kill' due to the nature of combat interactions in games.
Ganking originally meant 'gang kill', as in a group attacking a lone foe or smaller group (one side did not have to be a PCs). Now it means any situation in which one side of players (the gankers) engages in a combat where the other side of players (the ganked) have no reasonable hope of winning. It could be due to level differences, group sizes, equipped gear or any of a multitude of other situations. It's not just about having an advantage, it's about having an overwhelming advantage.
It evolved into it's current form largely because of WoW's multiplayer, or I should say it gained popularity because of WoW as the term was around in the early days of EQ.

You cannot stop the current definition of ganking in the PvP that CoT is going to have because in open world PvP there is very little incentive and few restrictions that ensure a balanced engagement.
Open world PvP is designed to be a cut throat, survival of the fittest experience. To succeed in that type of PvP you must seek every advantage and exploit every weakness because that is what your opponents can (and most often) do. Open world PvP isn't broken or hurt by ganking because that type of PvP is designed to encourage that ganking behavior. Just as a 'King of the Hill' type of PvP encourages the leaders to camp as part of it's design, Open world PvP encourages the overwhelming advantage/exploit behavior of ganking as part of it's design.

I have many issues with open world PvP but, as many have pointed out, ganking is simply the type of PvP it is.

Languages change from time to time, what might mean one thing a decade or two can mean something different today, and those exploits only really work in games where everyone is the basically the same. In DayZ the ganking can be used to great effect, but the thing is, is that this isn't DayZ. In DayZ you're only really overpowered if you have a gun, but guns have limited ammo and can be taken away. In CoT 49 levels higher than your target don't follow the same rules as that.

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 day ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Yes you are all quite correct

Yes you are all quite correct. I don’t think my experience falls inline with “ganking” strictly speaking. Either way I am delighted that MWM has planned for such conditions, hopefully minimizing the marginalization of anyone playing the game! I mean this with respect to more than the issue we are discussing in this thread.

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

What actually matters in terms of CoT is that for better or worse (I'll let the individual reader decide which applies to them) there will no longer be ANY reason for a given player to have to risk/suffer entering a PvP zone in order to accomplish anything in the game they want to do. There will no longer be any spot on any zone map where a person will have to accept being in an open PvP environment just to be able to stand on that spot. That's the game-changer here (no pun intended).

That may be an important distinction to you, but it of far less interest to me than the fact that structured fair contests will be exceedingly difficult to arrange and engage in. The fact that I am fully aware of what to expect in open world PvP does not change my enjoyment of the PvP. I do not find underhanded (my opinion) tactics (using or being the victim of) a fun activity and have no desire to participate. The fact that it is optional is the only aspect I am not unhappy with, but it a very small consolation considering if it wasn't optional I would just avoid the game altogether.

I don't PvP to win, or rather that is not the driving reason behind my desire to PvP. I want myself and my opponent to enjoy the fight. I want to challenge myself against foes of comparable skill and rank to ensure that I feel a sense of accomplishment when I win and that don't feel a sense of being cheated when I lose. And I want the same for those I face.
With open world PvP's advantage/exploit style of combat the chances for a comparable engagement is greatly diminished. Most encounters end up with one side greatly outclassing the other so you either have an easy win or an unavoidable loss.

The game changer for me isn't badges or location, it's the fact that I doubt I will be able to PvP in a manner I enjoy.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
notears wrote:
notears wrote:

Languages change from time to time, what might mean one thing a decade or two can mean something different today, and those exploits only really work in games where everyone is the basically the same. In DayZ the ganking can be used to great effect, but the thing is, is that this isn't DayZ. In DayZ you're only really overpowered if you have a gun, but guns have limited ammo and can be taken away. In CoT 49 levels higher than your target don't follow the same rules as that.

No idea what you are talking about.

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 day ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:
Lothic wrote:

What actually matters in terms of CoT is that for better or worse (I'll let the individual reader decide which applies to them) there will no longer be ANY reason for a given player to have to risk/suffer entering a PvP zone in order to accomplish anything in the game they want to do. There will no longer be any spot on any zone map where a person will have to accept being in an open PvP environment just to be able to stand on that spot. That's the game-changer here (no pun intended).

That may be an important distinction to you, but it of far less interest to me than the fact that structured fair contests will be exceedingly difficult to arrange and engage in. The fact that I am fully aware of what to expect in open world PvP does not change my enjoyment of the PvP. I do not find underhanded (my opinion) tactics (using or being the victim of) a fun activity and have no desire to participate. The fact that it is optional is the only aspect I am not unhappy with, but it a very small consolation considering if it wasn't optional I would just avoid the game altogether.

I don't PvP to win, or rather that is not the driving reason behind my desire to PvP. I want myself and my opponent to enjoy the fight. I want to challenge myself against foes of comparable skill and rank to ensure that I feel a sense of accomplishment when I win and that don't feel a sense of being cheated when I lose. And I want the same for those I face.
With open world PvP's advantage/exploit style of combat the chances for a comparable engagement is greatly diminished. Most encounters end up with one side greatly outclassing the other so you either have an easy win or an unavoidable loss.

The game changer for me isn't badges or location, it's the fact that I doubt I will be able to PvP in a manner I enjoy.

I think you have a maturity toward this form of gameplay that is not ubiquitous in the PVP realms in which I have engaged. And I respect you for it!

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:
Lothic wrote:

What actually matters in terms of CoT is that for better or worse (I'll let the individual reader decide which applies to them) there will no longer be ANY reason for a given player to have to risk/suffer entering a PvP zone in order to accomplish anything in the game they want to do. There will no longer be any spot on any zone map where a person will have to accept being in an open PvP environment just to be able to stand on that spot. That's the game-changer here (no pun intended).

That may be an important distinction to you, but it of far less interest to me than the fact that structured fair contests will be exceedingly difficult to arrange and engage in. The fact that I am fully aware of what to expect in open world PvP does not change my enjoyment of the PvP. I do not find underhanded (my opinion) tactics (using or being the victim of) a fun activity and have no desire to participate. The fact that it is optional is the only aspect I am not unhappy with, but it a very small consolation considering if it wasn't optional I would just avoid the game altogether.

I don't PvP to win, or rather that is not the driving reason behind my desire to PvP. I want myself and my opponent to enjoy the fight. I want to challenge myself against foes of comparable skill and rank to ensure that I feel a sense of accomplishment when I win and that don't feel a sense of being cheated when I lose. And I want the same for those I face.
With open world PvP's advantage/exploit style of combat the chances for a comparable engagement is greatly diminished. Most encounters end up with one side greatly outclassing the other so you either have an easy win or an unavoidable loss.

The game changer for me isn't badges or location, it's the fact that I doubt I will be able to PvP in a manner I enjoy.

I was simply conveying my understand of the term "ganking" as it related to CoH. No one who was actively, willingly PvPing with each other ever said that they were "ganking" each other during the many hundreds of hours I actually PvPed in CoH. That wasn't a thing PvPers did to each other. Despite your historical perspective of other games the ONLY time I ever heard the word "gank" used in CoH was in reference to the ever-present angst of care bear badgers being "ganked" by PvPers while attempting to earn badges.

Thus when I said that I don't think ganking will be a "thing" in CoT it's because based on the way PvP will work people who'll want to badge will no longer have to suffer PvP. Sure people who do want to PvP can always do whatever you were referring to in terms of one side/party overwhelming another side/party. But that's not "ganking", that's just PvP. Ganking is a very specific negatively-oriented ass-hat activity that usually involved idiotic PvP weenies who thought it was cool to insta-kill people who didn't even want to PvP. It was never a "neutral" thing and certainly was never brave/good thing.

Now one more time (because virtually every time I write a post about ganking readers of those posts automatically assume I'm a care bear and/or anti-PvP) I had absolutely no problem dealing with PvP while I badged in PvP zones in CoH. It was always easy enough to simply pay attention to avoid most of the ass-hats. I'm I excited that I'll no longer have to put up with the random ass-hats while badging in CoT? Sure it'll make things easier. But TBH even if the PvP zones were going to work -exactly- the same way they did in CoH it would not really have bothered me. It just would have provided me more would be assassins that I could have smoked while badging. *shrugs*

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 14 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

That may be an important distinction to you, but it of far less interest to me than the fact that structured fair contests will be exceedingly difficult to arrange and engage in. The fact that I am fully aware of what to expect in open world PvP does not change my enjoyment of the PvP. I do not find underhanded (my opinion) tactics (using or being the victim of) a fun activity and have no desire to participate. The fact that it is optional is the only aspect I am not unhappy with, but it a very small consolation considering if it wasn't optional I would just avoid the game altogether.

I don't PvP to win, or rather that is not the driving reason behind my desire to PvP. I want myself and my opponent to enjoy the fight. I want to challenge myself against foes of comparable skill and rank to ensure that I feel a sense of accomplishment when I win and that don't feel a sense of being cheated when I lose. And I want the same for those I face.
With open world PvP's advantage/exploit style of combat the chances for a comparable engagement is greatly diminished. Most encounters end up with one side greatly outclassing the other so you either have an easy win or an unavoidable loss.

The game changer for me isn't badges or location, it's the fact that I doubt I will be able to PvP in a manner I enjoy.

Brainbot, you and I disagree on a lot of things, and even the things we do agree on, we don't seem to be able to get past the manner in which we do. But on this, I think you and I are of equal mind.

In archeage and other open world PvP environments, there are outlaw systems instituted to allow there to be consequences for unrestricted aggression. I actually enjoy the PvP of those worlds. There is always a risk of ambush, and the fact that you can't opt out of it creates a sense of excitement in everything you do. Stealth by way of route selection and timing rather than invisibility, and safety in numbers are the daily norm. The friends I've made in Archage are the best friends I've made in any MMO for that reason. But in those open world games, there is a reward to go along with the risk. Trade runs for money or materials, or to level your crafting professions are usually the biggest motivation.

CoT will have none of those motivations.
The only motivation to enter the PvP of CoT is to PvP. And the fact that there will be no consequences for unrestricted aggression will, as you concisely stated, turn it into a place full of one-sided battles. Players will attempt to build kill streaks and protect their notoriety by forming bully mobs, and if they can't form a powerful enough bully mob they won't PvP for fear of losing their latest kill streak. I am saddened and disappointed by that, but that is really just due to my expectations and personal desires. I am sure there are others out there who are glad for this PvP design. I won't begrudge them of their expectations and desires as long as they allow me to express my own.

Besides, I am sure MWM will reserve their right to redesign PvP as many times as they need to get it the way they want it. The way it is right now requires the least amount of mechanics differences from PvE. It seems there will be little differences other than keeping track of and doling out rewards based on some statistics that exist only in PvP. Even the level lens concept is probably just the PvE level comparison mechanic they are using for player characters. If they con grey or purple you can't interact with them. (<--probably, they haven't really told us exactly how level lens will work) Oh, and league members are not able to be targeted with hostile spells just like teammates aren't in PvE content. So I think what MWM has in store for PvP is the least amount of effort they could possibly put into PvP. When you are in the instance, you are flagged for PvP. Period, end of differences. And that makes sense, since PvP is probably not their core market.


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.
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

The only motivation to enter the PvP of CoT is to PvP. And the fact that there will be no consequences for unrestricted aggression will, as you concisely stated, turn it into a place full of one-sided battles.

The only difference between PvP in CoT versus CoH is that PvPers will no longer have care bear badgers to mercilessly slaughter. Everything else that PvPers already did in CoH they'll be able to do in CoT. I honestly see no way this concern of yours about "no consequences for unrestricted aggression" will have any effect in CoT because there were already no consequences for unrestricted aggression in CoH either. Sorry, I just don't see a downside here...

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Alright Lothic, whatever.

Alright Lothic, whatever.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 14 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

The only motivation to enter the PvP of CoT is to PvP. And the fact that there will be no consequences for unrestricted aggression will, as you concisely stated, turn it into a place full of one-sided battles.

The only difference between PvP in CoT versus CoH is that PvPers will no longer have care bear badgers to mercilessly slaughter. Everything else that PvPers already did in CoH they'll be able to do in CoT. I honestly see no way this concern of yours about "no consequences for unrestricted aggression" will have any effect in CoT because there were already no consequences for unrestricted aggression in CoH either. Sorry, I just don't see a downside here...

I was not even attempting to compare CoT to CoX. I never wanted to nor can I remember ever doing PvP in CoX, so any comparisons you want to make to CoX are lost on me.


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.
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

The only motivation to enter the PvP of CoT is to PvP. And the fact that there will be no consequences for unrestricted aggression will, as you concisely stated, turn it into a place full of one-sided battles.

The only difference between PvP in CoT versus CoH is that PvPers will no longer have care bear badgers to mercilessly slaughter. Everything else that PvPers already did in CoH they'll be able to do in CoT. I honestly see no way this concern of yours about "no consequences for unrestricted aggression" will have any effect in CoT because there were already no consequences for unrestricted aggression in CoH either. Sorry, I just don't see a downside here...

I was not even attempting to compare CoT to CoX. I never wanted to nor can I remember ever doing PvP in CoX, so any comparisons you want to make to CoX are lost on me.

Well that does make it hard for me to convey facts to you when you have no basis for understanding the issue at hand. Perhaps I'll just keep to my own actual CoH PvP experience to inform me on how much better PvP will be in CoT just based on what little we've been told about it already. *shrugs*

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

The only motivation to enter the PvP of CoT is to PvP.

Are you sure? As I understand it there will be tangible benefits to doing well in CoT's PvP. As in rewards beyond titles and recognition.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 14 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

The only motivation to enter the PvP of CoT is to PvP. And the fact that there will be no consequences for unrestricted aggression will, as you concisely stated, turn it into a place full of one-sided battles.

The only difference between PvP in CoT versus CoH is that PvPers will no longer have care bear badgers to mercilessly slaughter. Everything else that PvPers already did in CoH they'll be able to do in CoT. I honestly see no way this concern of yours about "no consequences for unrestricted aggression" will have any effect in CoT because there were already no consequences for unrestricted aggression in CoH either. Sorry, I just don't see a downside here...

I was not even attempting to compare CoT to CoX. I never wanted to nor can I remember ever doing PvP in CoX, so any comparisons you want to make to CoX are lost on me.

Well that does make it hard for me to convey facts to you when you have no basis for understanding the issue at hand. Perhaps I'll just keep to my own actual CoH PvP experience to inform me on how much better PvP will be in CoT just based on what little we've been told about it already. *shrugs*

Understanding the issue at hand? Don't patronize me. My PvP experience in over a dozen MMO allows me to make an educated assessment of the PvP in CoT without ever having played the PvP in CoX. The issue I was discussing was what I enjoy about PvP in the games where I enjoy it the most, and why the proposed offerings we have heard about for CoT will be undesirable to me, and why.


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.
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

The only motivation to enter the PvP of CoT is to PvP.

Are you sure? As I understand it there will be tangible benefits to doing well in CoT's PvP. As in rewards beyond titles and recognition.

I know you don't want to hear anything about this from me but if it's true there's going to be "tangible PvP rewards" the only question I have on that would be "Are those rewards unique to PvP or not?"

If the answer to that question is 'yes' then I would simply gear up to earn those rewards. But sure-as-shit there would be all sorts of crying and gnashing of teeth for those people who'd want those unique rewards but hated engaging in PvP. Not entirely sure these Devs would want to create that kind of scenario based on how they've continually said they don't want to "force" anyone to do anything they don't want to do by providing multiple ways to get most everything.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 14 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

The only motivation to enter the PvP of CoT is to PvP.

Are you sure? As I understand it there will be tangible benefits to doing well in CoT's PvP. As in rewards beyond titles and recognition.

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, so I'll assume you are being serious.

Indeed. I also expect that players will be able to fully level to max through PvP alone. I don't see how that changes what I said. "Tangible benefits to doing well in PvP" still equates to "for the purposes of PvP" in my lexicon. So I just naturally assumed they were one and the same when I wrote that. If you didn't, then that is just another example of the two different planets you and I are from. I'm okay with that.


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.
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

The only motivation to enter the PvP of CoT is to PvP. And the fact that there will be no consequences for unrestricted aggression will, as you concisely stated, turn it into a place full of one-sided battles.

The only difference between PvP in CoT versus CoH is that PvPers will no longer have care bear badgers to mercilessly slaughter. Everything else that PvPers already did in CoH they'll be able to do in CoT. I honestly see no way this concern of yours about "no consequences for unrestricted aggression" will have any effect in CoT because there were already no consequences for unrestricted aggression in CoH either. Sorry, I just don't see a downside here...

I was not even attempting to compare CoT to CoX. I never wanted to nor can I remember ever doing PvP in CoX, so any comparisons you want to make to CoX are lost on me.

Well that does make it hard for me to convey facts to you when you have no basis for understanding the issue at hand. Perhaps I'll just keep to my own actual CoH PvP experience to inform me on how much better PvP will be in CoT just based on what little we've been told about it already. *shrugs*

Understanding the issue at hand? Don't patronize me. My PvP experience in over a dozen MMO allows me to make an educated assessment of the PvP in CoT without ever having played the PvP in CoX. The issue I was discussing was what I enjoy about PvP in the games where I enjoy it the most, and why the proposed offerings we have heard about for CoT will be undesirable to me, and why.

Sorry but even you would have to say that if you've had PvP experience in a dozen+ MMOs then more than likely you would have also tried it in CoH. Based on your "never wanted to nor can I remember ever doing PvP in CoX" statement it was extremely easy to assume that if you hated/avoided it so much in CoH then you likely have no functional PvP experience in any game. In other words how could I have expected you to even be able to make an educated assessment of CoT's potential PvP system when you seemed to indicate you didn't even touch CoH's PvP system with a ten-foot pole?

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, so I'll assume you are being serious.

Indeed. I also expect that players will be able to fully level to max through PvP alone. I don't see how that changes what I said. "Tangible benefits to doing well in PvP" still equates to "for the purposes of PvP" in my lexicon. So I just naturally assumed they were one and the same when I wrote that. If you didn't, then that is just another example of the two different planets you and I are from. I'm okay with that.

No, I wasn't being facetious. I was trying to point out that in relation to your example of Archeage's trade runs there is a high probability (based on dev comments) that CoT PvP will offer unique player vs player challenges that result in a tangible reward if you are successful.

A situation very similar to a trade run can easily be adapted for CoT. A player could be tasked with transporting any number of things across the game world (organs for transplant, evidence in a trial, illicit materials, ect). Instead of charcoal and spices you transport something else and much like in Archeage transporting these things would make you a target for other players. Success in transporting would offer you a tangible reward and failure might mean another gets a comparable reward.
But that isn't the only unique PvP activity that I have seen discussed. Robberies, hostage situations, raids (as in attacking or defending a strategic point), territory wars, ect. In fact you and I had discussed something very similar to this at length previously. In that thread (and others) the devs have said they intend to provide PvP activities for players to engage in.

What I was trying to get across is that the elements that made you enjoy the PvP in Archeage might be present in CoT.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 16 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, so I'll assume you are being serious.

Indeed. I also expect that players will be able to fully level to max through PvP alone. I don't see how that changes what I said. "Tangible benefits to doing well in PvP" still equates to "for the purposes of PvP" in my lexicon. So I just naturally assumed they were one and the same when I wrote that. If you didn't, then that is just another example of the two different planets you and I are from. I'm okay with that.

No, I wasn't being facetious. I was trying to point out that in relation to your example of Archeage's trade runs there is a high probability (based on dev comments) that CoT PvP will offer unique player vs player challenges that result in a tangible reward if you are successful.

A situation very similar to a trade run can easily be adapted for CoT. A player could be tasked with transporting any number of things across the game world (organs for transplant, evidence in a trial, illicit materials, ect). Instead of charcoal and spices you transport something else and much like in Archeage transporting these things would make you a target for other players. Success in transporting would offer you a tangible reward and failure might mean another gets a comparable reward.
But that isn't the only unique PvP activity that I have seen discussed. Robberies, hostage situations, raids (as in attacking or defending a strategic point), territory wars, ect. In fact you and I had discussed something very similar to this at length previously. In that thread (and others) the devs have said they intend to provide PvP activities for players to engage in.

What I was trying to get across is that the elements that made you enjoy the PvP in Archeage might be present in CoT.

At the very least it is my hope to provide such activities. Unfortunately, they won’t exist at launch.

The way I look at it is we are giving the foundation. We can build upon the basic PvP phase from there.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

At the very least it is my hope to provide such activities. Unfortunately, they won’t exist at launch.

The way I look at it is we are giving the foundation. We can build upon the basic PvP phase from there.

Thank you, I didn't want to go through pages of posts to find where you had said as much before.