Discuss: 13.8 PvP changes (updated Tuesday 19th)

[Tetra]

Originally posted by ULTRA1
I don't see you, val, chiding in on my suggestions to extend risk to the attacker as well as the attacked, you just want to be obtuse. You hate PVP, you should just avoid it at all costs. It's easy enough to do.

Your suggestion adds more risk to the attacked and still adds no risk to the attacker. Someone out hunting mobs will have more than 0% of their TNL in exp... all your suggestion does is mean that you can now take all their TNL they have gained so far when you go out griefing after you get a level.

[________________Sent]

0 XP lost for PvP might be the most enjoyable solution to both sides. Of course that's exploitable, but then again check mission leveling if you think people aren't exploiting XP.

[____________Valerian]

I don't understand why you are so bitter, but regardless of your reasons, you don't have to go to any PVP area to level or do missions at any level in the game.

LOL I'm not bitter I'm having fun with your posts thats all. The idea that PKs are out there for the thrill of the risk and stuff when its quite obvious that the same ppl doing PvP are looking for the easiest way out at least as much as everyone else. They want risk, a challenge? OK, start by getting rid of twinks then.

You just dont want to accept that forcing ppl to become targets for others enjoyment (must be fun to shoot someone in the back who doesnt want to fight or cant fight back) is not a good idea.
I dont like PvP you're right and the reason I'm posting in these forums is to tell Funcom that. The PvP crowd's been always very loud on these boards and perhaps gives Funcom the impression that its a very important aspect of the game. Well for most its not and they dont appreciate more playfields becoming PvP and the introduction of Lamer-PvP-rules. I still think a vote by all players would clear things up for Funcom.

Val (how about you comment on the suggested vote?)

[Maximilian]

Yep, not this time!!!

I will do what I can to avoid that the aggressive minority will be rewarded once more this time.

I don't hesitate to speculate that the Funcom folks like to PvP on their own and thereby strengthen this minor part (personal impression) of the whole game. Examples: insufficient implementation of trade skills, no missions without fighting, preference of combat classes, etc.
If they want to make it more attractive, this is definitely the wrong way - hear me???
The ability to be attacked by everyone once you reach level 75 is pure crap. This clearly favorizes power players. I am playing this game for six months now with one char at level 67. I am not looking forward to the day when I reach 75. All high level power players can then start hunting me - where is fun in that? Of course their characters should be better than mine, they play a lot more than I do. I would completly accept loosing to your (Ultra1) 5x char with my 67 Adv because you know how to play the PvP game, I don't. All fine, but why should a level 150 be rewarded that just came by and wanted to take me out because he might get some nice items.

We need a poll on this!!!

And I am democratic enough to accept a vote of the majority. If there is a (real) majority for the PvP changes and the indirect forcement into this game aspect - well I have to accept. Either learn it or leave it.

Some proposals to make PvP more attractive:
- Once you started a PvP fight no more /terminate (1 min timer, what so ever). You start, you bring it to the end.
- Once you started PvP no more zoning - fleeing when it turns worse, eh
- The attacker should risk some XP per fight dependant of the level of the target. You should not loose any level, but negative XP should be possible (Ergebnisvortrag ). This needs some serious thinking, I know, but there should be a risk to the attacker. He has the advantage of the first shot anyway.
- Land capturing - real war fare!!!

So, then I would respect these fuzzy titles a bit more than I do now.

So long,

Max(imilian)

[Peep]

I am against the PvP changes because there is no challenge there. From the levels of 75-85 I have been in 6 PvP fights and have lost close to a total of 2-mill xp. The best chance I have had so far in winning one of these so called fights is when 2 level 130 Omni’s dropped out of yalms in front of me. Now you want them to take my loot too wasn’t the xp enough?

I have read every post in this thread and will bring up some of what I think are the better comments:

One suggestion was that the attacker shares in the risk by losing xp as well. This idea would not have worked in my 6 fights because if my attackers had every xp point they had ever earned since level 1 at stake then they were in absolutely no danger of losing xp at all.

Another suggestion was to have no xp loss at all if killed in PvP. This I think is the fairest thing to do because unless the attacker is a complete idiot and hadn't saved then both sides will share the same xp risk. Ok so you might say there should be some other risk besides getting killed if you are in a 25% zone so how about if the sides are even in level you stand to lose all your unsaved xp and can be stepped up until one side is gray to the other then the gray side loses no xp?

Some suggestions of my own:
Is it Funcoms intention to reward a team of 4 level 150 players dropping from a yalm and killing a level 75 player? Where is the challenge here? Why not make it so that if you attack a player that is gray to you then you receive no merit or even a negative one. As with the looting make it that you cannot loot gray kills.

[__________NicholaSix]

I'm curious why you think that if you hunt in 25% gas you think the majority of risk should lie on the person who wants to contest your right to be there?

I hope that at some point in the future there will be events that are story driven and invlove PVP, see CONFLICT: Omni v Clan.

If you are suggesting that by starting combat you should lose all your exp back to level 1 how do you think funcom will motivate people to participate in such events?

The title system currently puts much more emphisis on deaths over kills, meaning that if you die you lose more points toward your title than if you get a kill, this already makes people who PVP for fun in such zones as 2ho play like total cowards, and makes zones a key aspect of anyone's PVP strats. If you are suggesting that if you attack someone in PVP you will lose all exp back to level 1, I think you are being a little silly. No one would ever participate in any conflict if that were the case.

I have a feeling funcom wants to make players part of the conflict, not camp hunting spectators that read web updates of a conflict that has no relation to events the players experience in game.

Honestly, if you want to PUD out of the story, be my guest, 80% of the world is 75% gas and you can hunt to your hearts content there and do missions there till the AO servers shut down. There are tons of high level mobs out in 75% gas areas, and yes they may not give 100k exp and hit like level 75 mission mobs like the medussa used to but at least you won't be killed by other players while camping your precious experience, which aparently is all the game is about to most of you, leveling.

[______________haujob]

oh boy,

looting the corpse? whats the sense in that?!
I remember fighting for 4hrs with my lvl 133 Engi through a mission for some piece of Armor that I really wanted, if I imagine some gankers/griefers waiting outside of it to take it from me.... Come on!
As a high lvl omni, I dont have a lot of choices for mission areas, lots of areas that my missions lead to are or have become 25%.
Ive been mission-/gridcamped so many times I cant count it!
The worst thing Ive seen was a group of lvl 150+ ppl taking a lvl 45 player in team with them so they can make sure they not only can kill all 75+ but also all ppl around lvl 45!
Take a look at all the things that have been mentioned before in this thread, like people fleeing from zones that have been 75% before and are now 25%, doesnt that make you wonder why people prefer to stay outside 25%?!
Once again that change wont effect missionsneaker/-runner classes as they will rather /terminate after they got their reward before leaving the mission area. My Engi will have to run for buffs again.
Make this change come true and I will go play something else and will have 13 $ more a month!!! I wont spend my freetime ending up with nothing.

[sead]

I agree totally, Ultra1!

I can't believe people are whining about this..that's so pathetic
Seems people just want to level up as fast as they can...

As for people saying the 'attacker' (or "griefer" as they are often called) should have risk instead..well..uh, they do..YOU can attack them back you know..
ahh, but why attack back, when you can bend over and complain about it

"wahhh there are no high level camps..wahhh i want to level all day without any risk..wahhhh i hate pvp.....wahhhhhh"

[________________Ecce]

I agree with what Meligant said earlier. There should be some risk on the part of the attacker or the attacker's team.

If the "defender" is going to risk the loss of any unsaved items, then the "attacker" should risk more. Since they are attacking, they will likely have scanned anyway and will likely only pick on people whom they know they can beat.

Suggestion: The attacker and everyone on the attacker's team can have everything loots, including (and this is a must) all of their equipped items. Put all equipped items in a skull and bones backpack that can be worn like the pioneer backpack.

This balances the risk so that attackers/campers/griefers/gankers have to consider and be committed to their actions. You want to pvp, fine, but be tough about it, because you risk more.

At the moment, they don't have any risk at all.


Ecce

[___________Atrocious]

Originally posted by ULTRA1
I'm curious why you think that if you hunt in 25% gas you think the majority of risk should lie on the person who wants to contest your right to be there?

Ultra, you have to stop. You keep talking about Risk vs Reward, and when it really come down to the wire it seems to me you don't want any risk when you are attacking someone.

If you have saved there is no risk to death on Rubi-Ka. Therefore there usually is no risk for the attackers since they choose their battles.

There also is no risk for a lvl 100+ attacking one lone lvl 75.

I am all for risk vs reward. Increase the money or something with missions in 25% and 0% zones, but the risk cannot just be on the hunted. There has to be risk for the hunter even if he's saved. I will be quite happy with new PvP limits after lvl 75+, make new brackets so that there is a chance the attacker might loose.

You keep talking about RP, yet most people I know who RP(both table top and Live Role Playing) find that the story or being part of the conflict is enough reward in itself to PvP. They don't need the loot, they don't need to take items and money.

In UO there were a few well know and respected RP Pker, looters and thieves. They would give you a chance to run away, or kill you, rez you and let you go about your buisness not taking a single item. They wanted to RP a killer, thief or cowardly looter, but they also didn't want to infringe too much on other peoples fun. They had respect for other people and their wish to play the game their way.

I don't know if you've looked around in most MMORPGs, but most peole don't seem to be interested in RPing. In most hunting groups I've been in, people have always talked OOC. Lots of people don't care about omni/clan. I've had several Omnis wanting to team with me to go through dungeons and when I've said "No, omni scum, you killed my brother!", the most common response is: " You ****ing lame RPer."

[________________Ecce]

That was might thought also, all these pvp types post here complaining about how we non-pvp's are "whining," while none of them want any additional risks themselves.

How about, you lose a fight that you start, and the res effects last longer. :P

ecce

[__________NicholaSix]

I don't care about the loot.

I like the pinkies.

What I'm against is this trend of carebears to think they are intitled to feel safe anywhere they go in the world. If people go into 25% gas they take the risk of being attacked.

Enhancing the rewards of people who go into those zones is a great idea. Cash is a great idea, 200% mission cash rewards for doing missions in 25% zones to me sounds fantastic. I do missions in those zones with all my characters, 56 NT, 51 MA, 122 soldier, all of em. I would love to be rewarded for the extra risk I am willing to take.

When I log ultra on next time I'd be glad to work on guard duty for any team that wants to hunt in mort. At this point the only way you can get involved in the story is to take up arms on your side of the conflict.

Think about the rewards for the attacker for a minute. if a 125 kills a 75 they get almost no credit toward their title, they aren't risking experience, but they aren't gaining experience either. To me the loot doesn't matter, but if it was loot from camp hunting, I can't imagine it being valuable to anyone, I've came across a few nano cloaks from borgs, that being the most valuable loot I've seen on them, but that is common chest loot in missions.

Pinkies will make people PVP more, that is good, people should partake in the conflict. I don't think newts should drop pinkies even if they lose exp since they are not sided in the conflict. I also think newts should not be able to be attacked first, but should be able to initiate combat. I think though if newts team with clan or omni the teams side needs to stay clan or omni. Also I don't think clan and omni should be able to team at all for both role playing reasons and experience exploits.

At some point in the next 4 years you will be 150+ too, I'm not yet myself, and I am frequently outgunned. But even in the 120s I find myself bored of endless leveling treadmills, and PVP is fun. My guess is you will try it too soon and you may like it too =]

And Ecce, longer rez effects for the agressor would be fine with me too =]

[____________Valerian]

Actually I'm just bored, thats why I reply to this one

As for people saying the 'attacker' (or "griefer" as they are often called) should have risk instead..well..uh, they do..YOU can attack them back you know..

Hehe, try to read some of the posts in this thread again, Seoul (im really extremely polite here):
The attacker is safed and cant lose items or xp. Even if the attaqued was able to win he gets nothing.

"wahhh there are no high level camps..wahhh i want to level all day without any risk..wahhhh i hate pvp.....wahhhhhh"

See this line Ultra? Thats what I mean! Its this kind of peeps out there. Cant express themselves and dont think before opening their mouth.
Hehe and its another one of those badass "risk" players who apparently leveled up by killing rollerrats inside the 2H0 outpost and doesnt even know what the insurance term looks like!
d00dz are exactly the peeps that make sure that there is no risk involved for themselves. All that counts for them is what they want. Doesnt matter how lame it is to get there.

Val (couldnt resist this one)

[Tetra]

Originally posted by ULTRA1
I don't care about the loot.

I like the pinkies.

Good pinkies are cool, I remember auctioning long saved body parts of various avatars from long past arena duels. Nobody cares about giving up a pinkie to someone who kills them... what they care about is giving up the time and possibly some items that very well might be quite limited or even consisted of their entire playtime...

the moment that losing to PvP duels in the wild has a 0% chance of costing someone else/myself EXP or loot is the moment that I and quite likely many others will start PvP'ing

[Peep]

Originally posted by ULTRA1
I'm curious why you think that if you hunt in 25% gas you think the majority of risk should lie on the person who wants to contest your right to be there?

I hope that at some point in the future there will be events that are story driven and invlove PVP, see CONFLICT: Omni v Clan.

If you are suggesting that by starting combat you should lose all your exp back to level 1 how do you think funcom will motivate people to participate in such events?

You obviously didn't read my post ULTRA1 I was stating in the PvP fight I had the most chance out of the 6 of winning it was me a level 75 against the attackers both level 130. If the attackers had all the xp they gained since level 1 at stake would they be at any risk of losing it at all?

What I was trying to illustrate was that the attackers have nothing to lose no matter what is at stake because the outcome of the fight was never in question.


I would be happy to stay well away from 25% zones unless I am there to PvP but Funcom seems to be forcing us there just to level.

[___________Atrocious]

Originally posted by ULTRA1
What I'm against is this trend of carebears to think they are intitled to feel safe anywhere they go in the world. If people go into 25% gas they take the risk of being attacked.

First of all. Stop using the derogatory word Carebear. It makes you sound unintelligent, which I can clearly see you are not. You are actually the only person I've bothered trying to debate this point with, since you unlike Seoul dont just post a one liner about "Whine whine whine....".

Enhancing the rewards of people who go into those zones is a great idea. Cash is a great idea, 200% mission cash rewards for doing missions in 25% zones to me sounds fantastic. I do missions in those zones with all my characters, 56 NT, 51 MA, 122 soldier, all of em. I would love to be rewarded for the extra risk I am willing to take.

Glad to see we agree on one thing at least.

Think about the rewards for the attacker for a minute. if a 125 kills a 75 they get almost no credit toward their title, they aren't risking experience, but they aren't gaining experience either. To me the loot doesn't matter, but if it was loot from camp hunting, I can't imagine it being valuable to anyone, I've came across a few nano cloaks from borgs, that being the most valuable loot I've seen on them, but that is common chest loot in missions.

I thought that the winner would get the unsaved xp of the looser? Isn't that why high lvls are out there hunting lowbies? Since they get all the unsaved xp of their victims at no risk? Take a full team of lvl 76 which are all 40k from lvling. That's 6*500k=3 million xp without any risk. If I'm wrong on this part, then I really don't understand why they bother attacking people out lvling. I've sold those nano cloaks for 100k+ so they are worth something. So I guess a high lvl player could potentially make out with 3 million xp and items worth 500k+ if he/she is lucky?

About credit towards title. Are you sure about that? Still killing 6-10 lowbies probably count as much as killing 1 at same lvl. Don't titles also count? So if you kill titled lowbies you will increase more?

Pinkies will make people PVP more, that is good, people should partake in the conflict. I don't think newts should drop pinkies even if they lose exp since they are not sided in the conflict. I also think newts should not be able to be attacked first, but should be able to initiate combat. I think though if newts team with clan or omni the teams side needs to stay clan or omni. Also I don't think clan and omni should be able to team at all for both role playing reasons and experience exploits.

I would partake more in PvP if I got a NODROP pinkie which said "Leetkilla's pinkie", and I could keep them in a jar(which would never be full). That would truely add bragging rights.

At some point in the next 4 years you will be 150+ too, I'm not yet myself, and I am frequently outgunned. But even in the 120s I find myself bored of endless leveling treadmills, and PVP is fun. My guess is you will try it too soon and you may like it too =]

Don't be too sure. I'm having a kid soon, and my AO days might be very close to numbered. I might only be able to play on weekend. Seing how hard it gets to lvl now I doubt it. I hope to reach lvl 125 by the end of 2002. Pluss my main now is an engy.... Can you say suck at PvP? She's a tradeskill engy since I keep praying that one day tradeskill will actually matter.

And Ecce, longer rez effects for the agressor would be fine with me too =]

At least you are willing to take the extra risk. I've said it before you are very unique in that respect.

[BGumble]

Another ill conceived FC idea.

PvP is pointless the way it is currently implemented, there are too many over exploited characters and far too many balance issues for PvP to be anything more than a minor sideline. Sort out balance, sort out implant stacking, enforce an IP reset and unequip *then* PvP might be worth something.

I dont see how this can go ahead without serious changes to the whole way PvP works. PvP ranges would have to be reworked - say +/- a small percentage of your current level and attackers would have to run some risk.

Maybe if you did all that PvP would be a worthwhile addition to the game, right now its a minority activity for two types of people: 1. people who implant to QL80 at lvl 11 and hang around arenas (if thats what they enjoy then fine) and 2. High level characters ganking lower levels in 25% zones - pointless and stupid. Giving rewards to pointless and stupid activities is.... pointless and stupid.

[Detonate]

Originally posted by Dr. Sent
If you all want to make improvments to PvP try these ideas:
- Add a risk to the attacker.
- Remove the XP loss or make it minimal. Nothing quite like losing 2+ hours of XP to someone taking no risk at all.
- Make it rewarding to be in a PvP zone (hunt in a PvP zone). Currently XP is safer and more rewarding in 100% zones. With things as they are, why even bother going to a 25% gas zone to hunt?
- Give reasons to PvP as a team. Titles turn PvP into a silly duel fest and breed board whiners complaining about class imbalance. The fact is, with buffing and equiping determining the winner of a PvP contest, PvP is already a team contest but title rewards are for solo people only.
- PvP fights need to last longer so people that get jumped have time to decide if they want to stay and fight or run.

This probably the single best post I've read on this subject....

The real problem is that the Attacker(Griefer) has ZERO risk, and the average hunter/player trying to avoid Pvp has EVERYTHING to loose.

So there is the fix! Make the Attacker have something to loose. If he ganks some guy coming out of a mission and looses, then he........
(-Insert some good ideas here)
??????? Looses XP? Becomes lootable? Credits Lootable???

I certainly think that since the Attack almost always has the advantage, he should have the most to loose.

[__________NicholaSix]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Plasmatiq


I thought that the winner would get the unsaved xp of the looser? Isn't that why high lvls are out there hunting lowbies? Since they get all the unsaved xp of their victims at no risk? Take a full team of lvl 76 which are all 40k from lvling. That's 6*500k=3 million xp without any risk. If I'm wrong on this part, then I really don't understand why they bother attacking people out lvling. I've sold those nano cloaks for 100k+ so they are worth something. So I guess a high lvl player could potentially make out with 3 million xp and items worth 500k+ if he/she is lucky?

About credit towards title. Are you sure about that? Still killing 6-10 lowbies probably count as much as killing 1 at same lvl. Don't titles also count? So if you kill titled lowbies you will increase more?



No, the winner gets no experience at all under the current system and under the system that is to be implemented. You don't get any experience from the person that you kill and it has always been this way for a number of reasons and I am sure of this from experience. In the beginning of the game the rules were this way too. You could loot unsaved items and if the person you killed had 1/10th of a level in unsaved experience you would get a pinkie as a reward. The incentive of killing someone leveling was to get a pinkie.

Yes level difference is a huge element in PVP ranking, you have to kill about 10 people your level without dying to get a freshman title, you have to kill about 10 freshman your level to get a rookie title and so on, you can move up faster if you can kill rookies and apprentices. The title of the person you kill is one factor in the calculation and the level of the player is another. Players at the bottom of your range grant very little credit toward your title. The ranking is like a chess scoring system.


Note that if a party of 6 were attacked by a level 130ish player and you killed him you would get a large credit toward your title, but only if you break the team when attacked, as teamed players get no credit toward their titles for kills ATM. The advantage of staying teamed is heals and also you will suffer no penalty toward your title for dying. If you wern't teamed and were killed by someone much higher, again it would have a very small effect on your title.

I don't want to get into the whole loot thing, because I don't really have a position on it, but at level 75 you can make 1 million off of 4 or 5 missions, and you can do those in an evening. So honestly, at level 122 borg drop items aren't very valuable to me, and I usually just drop stuff like that on store terminal if I bother to pick it up. I don't know if I'd bother to pick anything off a player but the pinkie anyway but again, that's just me, others may take it as an opportunity to ransom items.

Congratulations, I have a 3 year old son myself, it's one of the best things about life, kids are amazing!

[Nataar]

Originally posted by Scorus

I came back with a group to kill them but they /terminated. That is the kind of player that this rule change is going to work for.

Scorus

Scorus actually makes a very good point here, as someone who enjoys hunting other players I have noticed this used a lot by people who don't want to lose a title or in this case as Scorus says to save loot.

This totally defeats the purpose of this change, a simple fix to this cowardly act by players be it the hunters or the hunted, you should implement a system where the last person to attack the player before he goes craven coward on you gets full PvP kill credit and the loot if any is to be had. Players do it for a variety of reasons, be it to save their title/loot or even just to rob you of your title reward for killing them. Such action should be seen as a forfeit of all rights rather than away to avoid the consequence of losing a PvP fight

Very good point Scorus .

--Nat