Open world PvP: Discusion

Discussion in 'WildStar General' started by mockingfox, Oct 30, 2012.

  1. mockingfox

    mockingfox Cupcake

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    east-coast
    This thread is for Discussion on all things PvP ranging from what you would like to see or not see done in WildStar. Your opinions on Battleground and instanced PvP and Ideas for Faction based World PvP elements are all welcome and should be discussed, considered, and respected by everyone. Hopefully this thread will embody what the community wants to get out of their PvP experience.

    Battlegrounds:
    I personally believe that instanced (arena) battlegrounds take away from the true spirit of an MMO, which is a vast persistent sandbox where players can interact and play side by side. Arenas undermine this greatly by pulling my player to a floating zone that isn't located anywhere on the world map and has no lasting relevance on the state of the server. It is also limits the amount of meaning PvP has on an MMO if its all a majority in arenas because their is no reason to compete against the other faction.

    When PvP is dedicated to being focused on the game with conflict over several dedicated zones it generates a true conflict between the player bases witch in turn generates more driver for PvP and effectivly more LASTING end game involment. I would like to reference one of the debatably best PvP MMO's ever, Dark Age of Camelot, where three factions battled over a huge central area called the frontier zone. Scattered across this zone were keeps which could be captured for your faction and would grant exp and bonuses to all those involved in the capture of said stronghold. This coupled with lower levels being able to effect highlevel (however marginally, unlike WOW were it is futile and thus locks out a significant part of your community from enjoying a core aspect of the game) meant that leveling via World PvP was a viable and fun activity to undertake. This also allowed all levels to take a break from their quest grinding and actually compete in a meaningful conflict in the world they spent so much time in and adored.

    Arenas wipe all of this away, you will always be matched against even or high leveled opponents (via PvP brackets) with even numbers fighting over the same small predefined stretch of ground. This leads to repetition which leads to boredom. The end result is who has the better gear total on their team, which means you have to spend even more time in another part of the game before you can even consider Arena PvP. This is bad, and it is something that should be avoided.

    Faction/World Conflict:
    In terms of WildStar they have been setting up the two fractions of the Exiles and the Dominion in a heated Conflict over the surface of Nexus. If their is not a good few expansive and dedicated World PvP zones I will be disappointed on the basis of the interesting conflict they have imagined. To put it simply it would be a waste not to let players decide the outcome on a server by server basis.
    having nice sleek Arenas where its evenly numbered takes away alot of fun potential on both sides from more interesting conflicts ESPECIALLY WHEN WE CONSIDER THE SETTLER PATH!

    This path has the potential to take the world PvP to truthfully grand heights. Building Up frontier towns and fortifying them against enemy raids would be THE SINGLE GREATEST ELEMENT IN A MMO EVER. Especially if their were hubs that would only offer quests if a area was adequately settled. This would lead to a continouse struggle over true control over a zone instead of meaningless towers that can be ignored.

    The backside is that these quests are not always available and thus cannot be part of the main quest line, these areas would have to be branches/side areas that would offer daily quests or side quests that could only be completed when the area is settled/controlled. These would have to be well worth the effort however.

    tl:dr PvP is great and should be done right to maximize player investment and end game AND pre-end game involment. Also NO INSTANCED/ARENA PVP

    comments thoughts? feel free to bring up your own topics, I dont want Battleground to be the only thing we discus in this thread
    Regiside likes this.
  2. Regiside

    Regiside New Cupcake

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    east-coast
    An interesting point on the topic of arenas vs battleground vis a vis their tone and effect on an MMO's engagment for the invested PvP player.
    The idea of certain areas being dedicated to PvP and within these areas being meaningful locations to capture and settle with short term benefits (exp/honor/gear/fun) and long term benefits (additional quest hub, other cool things) is an idea that lights my fire. Bringing great importance to the settler class would be AWSOME and is really taking this to the extremes

    however how can we tie the other paths into this great idea in an effort to not overshadow them.
    Soldiers could strengthen npc defenders maybe?

    Mabye the explorer could set beacons that allow settlements to be constructed in the area or simply provide lines of communication/trade? I cant figure out how to invole them lastingly in this settlement battleground idea. Obviously they would have explorer quests in these areas so they will want to have their faction controlling the area for them. Scientists should also want these areas controlled for their research giving them access to many species not found elsewhere.

    On another topic of PvP Im a big fan of lower levels being able to effect high levels, making "mobs" of lower levels able to support high levels in their attacks and actually be relevant on the battle field (only with numbers) This leads to all levels participating instead of it just being an endgame activity like you said, which is something I always look for in my PvP. Also this means with more of a mix in levels lower levels can have targets that dont squish them instantly in a one on one fight leading them to participate even more.

    Arenas would take away from all this and I have to say i would also be disapointed if they were the main location of PvP in WildStar (which if they are present they tend to be due to the mindlessness of joining leading to a less involved PvP communitty etc. etc. etc. less meaningful endgame)

    in short agreed with OP
    mockingfox likes this.
  3. mockingfox

    mockingfox Cupcake

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    east-coast
    Its true we wouldn't want to make the settler so important that it overshadows the usefulness of the other paths late game. However If we simply scrap the idea of players being able to choose their own locations to build it makes them less of a requirement.

    The soldiers could maybe call in waves of npc troops to assult the enemy factions encampment (as a once a day quest once again?) unfortunatly I can see 4-5 soldiers all starting this quest at once leading to easy conquest, so thats a bad idea. Could it be that siege engines could be activated as a group quest of a minimum of 3 people. the players would help guard a convoy of lets say 3 weak npc's and a siege cannon over to the enemy base (opposition is pvp) which then starts opening fire?

    the main point here is that factions should have degradable and upgradable bases as capture points in a expansive and dynamic pvp zone.
    Regiside likes this.
  4. Regiside

    Regiside New Cupcake

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    east-coast
    would. never. stop. playing. this.
  5. thrastorm7

    thrastorm7 Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Long story short...

    Such games like wildstar, wow, swtor etc... are called MMO <RPG>.... Living in a fantasy world should meet not boundaries... and i ll explain my self...

    In my honest opinion, PvP should take place ANYWHERE, ANYTIME... when we are talking about games that have factions there should be no rules at which point each faction may attack the other...Can be in the capital city, can be to the last village, everywhere and anywhere...

    Now you ll tell me about high lvls ganking lower lvls, fair enough, there should be a way to counter that, what's that way? i dont know, i am not a developer... but i can think of some, such as dishonor system (that exists even in real world!!), a system that will TRULY discourage someone to go to a lowbies area to kill ppl...

    In other words, world pvp should be present at any moment...

    Ofc players should have the option to roll on pve servers... but thats another discussion...

    Regarding structured pvp such as battlegrounds or arenas, i am in favor..... in my book such activities called sports, in our case e-sports.... That's why should not be limited on the faction vs faction, but should be present on same faction vs same faction...

    (oh, and as far as concerns me, i am in favor of real pvp regarding factions, but that's another story aswell)

    always friendly
  6. SiegaPlays

    SiegaPlays "That" Cupcake

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Denmark
    Personally I do not want my "true MMO" saturates in PvP.
    Will it work for the players, who do not regard PvP as a primary part of their game time? Those who usually roll on PvE servers, those who do not want to be immersed in PvP as an objective? And even more, those who gets absolutely nothing out of PvP, no level of satisfaction because it is not the reason they log on?

    For your ideas to work for me, it would have to be implemented in parts of the world, where I have a choice to not go or not participate without loosing out on all the parts that makes up a "true MMO" for me or my chosen path, which I have to admit PvP only makes a slim but present part of for me.

    Is it something like how PvP rifts works in Rift? Dynamic spawned events, where you choose to participate or not, it is not a choice taken by others to enrich their game experience through ruining yours, when you have PMS and just want to pick flowers?

    To me the game is not about fighting the other faction, to me it is about exploring, building and being "constructive" despite the player base being split up in two clearcut factions (which in the first place is an unrealistic idea, peoples affiliations depends on so many levels of engagement, that just dividing them into two factions is a simple cop-out removing most morale dilemmas people should encounter when getting benefits or troubles over their actions and who they help).

    PvP is inherently set up as a destructive force. I have yet to see an objective, that is about saving something, rather than taking something at the cost of lives or demolishing something at the cost of history or structures.

    For me battlegrounds or let's call it good-natured brawling grounds (a mini game in the game - which has no need for factions, or even being instanced btw) is far more fun, than not being able to do anything else, because someone has elected me to grief as the gank victim of the day or one faction just happens to be more represented than the other in the game area I am in.

    I could see open world hangouts, like inns/smuggler dens/storage facilities in borderline areas that can be controlled through PvP sabotage, outright warfare and such to access the benefits (quests, vendors etc.) of the area for a while.

    Also major faction cities (naturally) and sabotaging missions in the depths of enemy territory.
    Actually, it could be interesting if the only place you are auto pvp flagged in is your major faction cities, heh.
    What if there is no faction balance at all, so one faction always runs the show, which balance tools can work to make it fair to those who happens to choose an underrepresented faction?

    And, darn it, I would hate to work my butt off on a settlement just to see the other faction walk in and steal it. No reason to choose settler, if that is the future of the path.

    ok, wall text galore, over and out, never mind, in short, I hope pvp is something we can choose to participate in or not, without it being "the end game" or a major card for the end game
  7. Regiside

    Regiside New Cupcake

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    east-coast
    Dishonored systems are a good idea and they used to be common place back in the old days of MMO's (Ultima online, Dark Age of Camelot etc.) I've got a few ideas for how to discourage low lvl ganking but its relative to what kind of PvP rewards system carbine intends on using (if at all, as highly unlikely as it is) so i will remain broad.

    If their is to be a Dishonorable/Honorable system or sorts it needs to be apparent when noticing someone at a glance. It should be displayed on someones title or effect title color (gold is high honor and black is lowest honor) as well as having in game penalties/benefits for low/high honor. These could result in straight buffs and debuffs, meaning a less honorable character will have slighly lower stats than a more honorable character. Directly effecting a players character while harsh is a good way of keeping players from going overboard on their murder spree's. However this should not mean that killing a few low levels will result in honor drop it should be a significant number to prevent low levels from assulting high levels with immunity for fear of penalty. Also a number of forgivness kills each day/week numbering around 5-6 before killing low levels starts effecting your honor, this is so high levels can bring low levels along as penalty shields and use it to hinder their opponents from using AOE attacks. And sometimes its just fun to crush an annoying pest.

    I could go on but considering how little we know about the PvP system vis a vis Honor/rewards i will give it a rest.
  8. mockingfox

    mockingfox Cupcake

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    east-coast
    @SeigaPlays
    I was imagining battlegrounds that are linked to the open world and fit into the world map like a puzzle. I noted that they would be seperate and not required to visit and that the full scale war and destruction would be present in these areas alone (although personally I would want a great many of them that leads to interfearing with the other player base PVE which i do not want to do on such a grand scale)

    As for destroying a settlers encampment. riddle me this, how much space is their in an MMO world?
    who decides who gets to use that space for building, and when that person is no longer here how do you remove it? If Players are able to create, Players MUST be able to destroy or else it will become a giant mess of left over buildings creating an unbuildable wastland of ruins and copy/paste vendors and motor bicycle shops.

    I understand the view point where your ideas are comming from but they do not lead to a meaningful endgame expeirience for the other community (PvPers) if you are only auto flagged in your city or a vast minority of the play space it esentially becomes an huge affair to even attempt to conflict with other players. Which is a hurdle most people will never be able to access. The ideas I am trying to propose are attempting (however poorly) at leading to a much more accessable and available PvP space where players can spontainously gather a couple of friends and attack the other faction without 40 man city raids or being max level.

    If that could be achieved it would be gloriouse
  9. Regiside

    Regiside New Cupcake

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    east-coast
    Agreed, and awsome.

    Seiga
    Yes PvP is destructive. But what do you mean you have yet to see an objective, that is about saving something? Does their have to be an objective where we all hold hands and pick flowers and grow life? I dont mean to step on your point but i dont think i understand your point.

    you could look at it like this, you and your friends want to defend the land you worked hard to settle and grow and now the other faction is coming to take that for themselves. Time to gather a couple of friends and protect what you worked so hard to create.
  10. Kurik

    Kurik Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2012
    Likes Received:
    1,082
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Texas
    Lately how MMOs have implemented Open PvP is create large optional areas or "Wells" dedicated to PvP which works for the most part. I enjoyed GW2's WvW overall but it got stale because fortifications and such are fixed and the only thing that changes is who controls them. Being able to setup stuff in different locations could keep things fresh for a very long time. If there are no PvP and PvE servers I like a flagging system for the Non-PvP dedicated areas which should keep everyone happy.
    Zap-Robo likes this.
  11. Regiside

    Regiside New Cupcake

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    east-coast
    This is the stagnation that i would like to avoid. Many developers these days Mainstream their games for wider appeal while undercutting any depth the endgame could present its players.
    As for a flagged system, this is for PVE servers strictly. If you do away with the PVE/PVP biserver system then it would have to be on an area by area basis.

    it could work like this, if you control an adjacent battleground you can gank enemy adjacent areas (these are not able to be taken control of and are static to a faction) this gives a good reason to control the battleground and avoids being a purly destructive force so it could work for Seiga as well.
    mockingfox likes this.
  12. Kurik

    Kurik Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2012
    Likes Received:
    1,082
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Texas
    It's still forcing PvP onto those players who may not want to do it, ganking should not be what PvP is about. Rivalry, camaraderie, objectives, and so forth should always be the focus.
  13. mockingfox

    mockingfox Cupcake

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    east-coast
    i like it, controlling the battlefields means controlling the ability to agress the other team. This lets people in the threatened area know when it is safe and when it is not and thus can and can avoid unwanted conflict. WIN/WIN
    Regiside likes this.
  14. mockingfox

    mockingfox Cupcake

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    east-coast
    I understand that some people do not like to be attacked/interrupted while playing their MMO's but for me it is what makes an MMO diferent from a single player RPG. That other players can interfear with your objectives is what keeps things interesting for me, and truth be told being ganked has only lead to hours of fun for me weather it was by an over level or a similar level. I had to deal with the opposition to continue and this oppisition was unstructured and most importantly Human, leading to a challenge no quest could ever give me.
    How I dealt with these and the conflicts that ensued are the sol reason why I play MMO's. Without Human conflict its all a meaningless grind to the top.

    Now that doesn't mean that PvP shouldn't be about rivalry, camaraderie, objectives etc. but getting "ganked" isn't unpleasant for everyone and is one of my favorite parts on a MMO from every angle of the situation.

    So we should have a great deal of objectives and battleground centered events/endgame(and pre-endgame) which is very structured, we should not do away with unstructured PvP (ganking)
    Regiside likes this.
  15. Kurik

    Kurik Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2012
    Likes Received:
    1,082
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Texas
    I like those moments as well as I would describe myself as a pretty hardcore PvPer but I think ganking should be limited to PvP zones. Once it spills into a PvE area I believe it causes more community drama than fun.

    The game could have it to where there's a PvP homebase for each faction which is considered a safezone until the enemy controls an adjacent location. Holding an adjacent location could allow them to pretty much sack the base similar to WAR's RvR. Putting PvE content into PvP zones should also create that unstructured PvP.

    This post is all under the assumption that there won't be different server rulesets.
  16. mockingfox

    mockingfox Cupcake

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    east-coast
    the idea of controlling a battleground/main PvP conflict zone allowing you to raid further into enemy territory, I feel like this is a good idea that doesnt disrupt PvEers to much and allows for those behind enemy lines moments and raids against their deeper encampments potentially degrading their quest hub (and leading to settlers having to restore the town to full order?)
    Regiside and Maddog Charlie like this.
  17. Maddog Charlie

    Maddog Charlie Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    USA
    Yep wouldnt want PVP in PVE zones for sure, thats killed many a game for me. ONLY way it would work is to allow each playstyle to play exclusively in their own content or to 'mingle' when the desire took them as noted in previous posts.
    Dont force PVP to PVE or PVE to PVP. Its essentially like forcing people to roleplay, some just arnt comfortable with it. 'Moderator - Sorry you misquoted Firefly there Im going to have to impose a penalty'
    Of cause PVPers often break and head back to PVE for a while so thats cool but not the raising of the bar from PVE to PVP.
    Some of us just dont have brains fast enough (just look at my TeamFortress kills :() Ganking in most PVE peoples minds is just outright unacceptable, its like sitting down to watch your favorite show and the neighbors remote control switches your TV over to an undesirable channel for 5 minutes. (In Texas I believe that is an act of War !)
  18. Maddog Charlie

    Maddog Charlie Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    USA
    So kind of like the SWG conquest cities with some kind of benefit to the winning faction for sure but with you on the not disrupting PVEers, they are the 85% of the games income.
    Regiside and mockingfox like this.
  19. mockingfox

    mockingfox Cupcake

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    east-coast
    @maddog
    I understand that many people are opposed to Open World PvP aka 'ganking' but while they see it as a neighbor flipping the channel to something horrid I see it as having tumbler on my browser except it goes off randomly in a new tab. It takes only a moment to close it if you dont like what you get, or you could have discovered a great new site to explore!

    The point is "Treat others the way you want to be treated" Which is exactly what I am doing.
    (It didnt ruin WoW for PVEers so it wont Ruin WildStar for them either)
    Regiside likes this.
  20. Maddog Charlie

    Maddog Charlie Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    USA
    @mockingfox Im yet to be convinced, but guess it depends on the 'cost of death' if you get a random tumbled webpage thats no biggie but if there is a need for a browser restart, registry defrag and no end of spam then it would annoy the <REDACTED> out of me (but that said I get annoyed by advertizing on TV, bad drivers and some days the sky being the wrong color of grey)

Share This Page