Merge all servers and create PvP instances

[fleshhunter]

How exactly do you copy a whole thread over from the "Archives"?

There is a ton of valuable info going to waste with this new forum, for instance if I do a Google search for old compiled Crafting lists the hard work someone did to compile all that info is no longer available, class build advice, dungeon strats, all gone.
This was a bad idea.

They just had to copy the sticky threads with all the precious informations here. . .

[Shealeigh]

PvP instances? Don't we already have that with Border Kingdoms? Haven't you see how BK (not) work?

If you give this kind of choice, people would just quest in PvE, then when they feel like ganking some noobs they would join PvP instance, but surprise! No people. Why? Because everyone who would go to the PvP stance would be going there focused on PvP. In the end you would have the same thing as BK: Lots of rangers running around trying to find someone to gank.

Definitely not a good idea. Unless if your idea of "World PvP" is restrict to resspad PvP instead of minimaps.

Now, if you offer something like 2x XP or anything that would motivate people to quest in those PvP stances, then you could get the expected results, as people joining the stance for better rewards. Challenge would be kept, everyone would have a choice, and everyone would be happy =)

[Roargathor]

PvP instances? Don't we already have that with Border Kingdoms? Haven't you see how BK (not) work?

If you give this kind of choice, people would just quest in PvE, then when they feel like ganking some noobs they would join PvP instance, but surprise! No people. Why? Because everyone who would go to the PvP stance would be going there focused on PvP. In the end you would have the same thing as BK: Lots of rangers running around trying to find someone to gank.

Definitely not a good idea. Unless if your idea of "World PvP" is restrict to resspad PvP instead of minimaps.

Now, if you offer something like 2x XP or anything that would motivate people to quest in those PvP stances, then you could get the expected results, as people joining the stance for better rewards. Challenge would be kept, everyone would have a choice, and everyone would be happy =)

I am ROARGATHOR, and I support this message.

[Kurt2013]

PvP instances? Don't we already have that with Border Kingdoms? Haven't you see how BK (not) work?

If you give this kind of choice, people would just quest in PvE, then when they feel like ganking some noobs they would join PvP instance, but surprise! No people. Why? Because everyone who would go to the PvP stance would be going there focused on PvP. In the end you would have the same thing as BK: Lots of rangers running around trying to find someone to gank.

Definitely not a good idea. Unless if your idea of "World PvP" is restrict to resspad PvP instead of minimaps.

Now, if you offer something like 2x XP or anything that would motivate people to quest in those PvP stances, then you could get the expected results, as people joining the stance for better rewards. Challenge would be kept, everyone would have a choice, and everyone would be happy =)

I'd rather say, that those people who in your scenario would only log "pve" instances would now log their pve toon on a pve server or grind pve instances before even going out for open pvp. Even if, the additional population and influx of pvp interested people from the "pve" servers will made up any losses from chickens.
Second, you could make these pvp instances more attractive for questing as well (not only 2x xp as you said maybe, but apart from just removing guards, for example by linking the pve xp to the amount of hostile players (maybe add an extra bonus for rangers)) and include pvp modifiers.
Sure, choke points can be a problem as can a few rangers blocking the entrance. But these problems you already have now as well (only a renown and consequence system can help you there).
So, botton line: NO loss, only chance to gain from pvp (even ganker) point of view...unless of course you prefer unconsensual pvp...but then you are violating the code of conduct anyway.
Combined with a self-regulating consequence system that allows for personal renown (instead of the murder system) and rewarding according for challenge, this should fix many problems in open world pvp now.

[Shealeigh]

I didn't get your point exactly, but as a libertarian I'm totally against all form of unconcensual actions. But it's not the case on PvP servers. Since there is a PvE option, you can assume those who join PvP servers don't mind if you iniciate agression against them, because it's just a game and the "agression" is what they're expecting to make their gameplay more fun.

But I think you got my point. Yes, having the PvE option would result in people ignoring the PvP one, at least untill they don't feel prepared. And people who would go to the PvP stance would only do so if they're confident their equips+skill+whatever will make them ready for the challenge. In other words, you would just have the same kind of PvP you find in PvE servers: people joining only when they are superduper prepared.

Then the result would be the same **** you get on Furry server: new players doing quests in their green lame equips, because they don't need more to level (and won't spend effort on getting these equips), being ganked by jobless people with their especialized toon for each leveling area.

World PvP in AoC fails because it lacks spontaneousty. Facing a prepared opponent breaks this spontaneousty and make the results more than expected; you always know that that stupid ranger attacking you are better equiped and all.

I believe this is not the kinda of PvP we want. It's the kinda of PvP those pathetic gankers want. They all whine about population but they don't help to increase or keep it, they just look their own fat belly and cry for more food to feed their stupid destructive gameplay.

If this is the kind of PvP people want, then it's easier to just increase the numbers of minimaps, because minigame has the same style as the currently "world PvP" in AoC.

[sgtMassDozer]

We've been recommending this on the US forums for years now, but all those old threads are gone, so here it is again.

1. Merge all the servers, US & EU

2. Create PvP instances where there are no guards, much like you've got Normal & Epic instances. Treat it like the instance choices currently available in old world zones. Every time you zone, you get to choose: PvE, Epic, PvP.

3. Increase the PvP rewards in the PvP instance so that open world PvP becomes attractive over mini-games. Mini-games are fun, but we've been playing the same maps for far too long.

Offer up any other suggestions here, but at a minimum these 3 steps must be done.

sounds really awesome i like the idea
only thing i can add is beef the stats of the pvp low sets to compete with the third set so new players won't get eating alive

[Tuut]

You would need to motivate people to do PvP instances. (ie: 2x xp from quests and mob kills, better quest rewards, etc).

Because as a previous poster already stated, anyone who's in that PvP instance is there to PvP.. someone who's trying to level up won't level up in a PvP instance.

[Kurt2013]

I didn't get your point exactly, but as a libertarian I'm totally against all form of unconcensual actions. But it's not the case on PvP servers. Since there is a PvE option, you can assume those who join PvP servers don't mind if you iniciate agression against them, because it's just a game and the "agression" is what they're expecting to make their gameplay more fun.

But I think you got my point. Yes, having the PvE option would result in people ignoring the PvP one, at least untill they don't feel prepared. And people who would go to the PvP stance would only do so if they're confident their equips+skill+whatever will make them ready for the challenge. In other words, you would just have the same kind of PvP you find in PvE servers: people joining only when they are superduper prepared.

Then the result would be the same **** you get on Furry server: new players doing quests in their green lame equips, because they don't need more to level (and won't spend effort on getting these equips), being ganked by jobless people with their especialized toon for each leveling area.

World PvP in AoC fails because it lacks spontaneousty. Facing a prepared opponent breaks this spontaneousty and make the results more than expected; you always know that that stupid ranger attacking you are better equiped and all.

I believe this is not the kinda of PvP we want. It's the kinda of PvP those pathetic gankers want. They all whine about population but they don't help to increase or keep it, they just look their own fat belly and cry for more food to feed their stupid destructive gameplay.

If this is the kind of PvP people want, then it's easier to just increase the numbers of minimaps, because minigame has the same style as the currently "world PvP" in AoC.

You make good points that should definitely be considered, but there are counterpoints (or additions and solutions), too.

First, i am not convinced with the consensuality (as said already above). It is not a global census given once and is valid since then (legally yes, but not in reality). People have moods and real lifes and you don't reroll on a pve server just to do a few quests in peace, if you prefer do be able to do pvp when you want.

The mechanisms you mention to avoid pvp until prepared are already in place even on pvp servers (solo instances, pve instances, using player search and only quest when not much people are there, logging off when attacked, staying under shield of the risen etc.) and i am not sure it is an illigemate one (as long as 90% fit the description you made). Those who fight back or talk to you, would probably quest in the pvp zones anyway (especially if the risk is rewarded). With the zones they can choose, but probably will be mentally prepared at least.

But that does not counter your spontanity and equip problem. I think it is a problem of open pvp in general though (be it the zones or the pvp servers).
Back in the days you had many pvpers not going for best equip but liked to test their skill and mettle as underdogs too. I doubt many of those are left though. Still i think, there is a solution some friends and me worked out: a consequence system including rewards according to the situation. Basically someone only finishing off others or someone who fights only with better stats will be rewarded less than someone who gears down and who fights against the odds. With that system the ganker type you describe will also gain certain "renown" fast, opening him/her more options in the criminal faction, but also giving drawbacks and consequences. The whole system is described in more detail on the TL forum.

Apart from the mentioned rewards for pve in a pvp zone, there should be something to do for the ones out only for pvp . Now you have that by the duel spots (not everyones thing) and you could later (if what you bring up really happens (empty pvp zones)) add exclusive pvp content there (quests, renown and faction rewards, some content at least that does not give pve xp (because those staying there might not want to level up) etc.). You can also do crossinstance quests, e.g. pve ones, that only can be solved in a pvp zone.

The big difference will be that the players will finally be able to CHOOSE. Those who avoid the zones might be a lot less than those from the actual pve server population who enter those zones for the fun and risk (many moved to a pve server for the unconsensual reason, but still like the thrill of open world pvp from time to time). You will still have sociopaths, but their effect will not be as drastic as it is now.


Another good thing is, that whatever measure you come up with to better open world pvp, it will be doable in those pvp zones too.

Trouble is, we do not exactly know how population in this zones will develop. Both you and me could be right. Many points will be solved just by higher population (back when the open world pop was higher, you had the same problems as now, but also more people to call for help and less people blocked and farmed repeatedly (swarm effect, lots of more victims to choose from a gankers pov).
Population on pvp server zones has significantly decreased and all you can do there is serverwide measures. For zones you still have options, even if they are empty at first, thus leaving the option to pvp anytime and anywhere open (unlike a merge pvp and pve).

[Yennefer]

You make good points that should definitely be considered, but there are counterpoints (or additions and solutions), too.

First, i am not convinced with the consensuality (as said already above). It is not a global census given once and is valid since then (legally yes, but not in reality). People have moods and real lifes and you don't reroll on a pve server just to do a few quests in peace, if you prefer do be able to do pvp when you want.

The mechanisms you mention to avoid pvp until prepared are already in place even on pvp servers (solo instances, pve instances, using player search and only quest when not much people are there, logging off when attacked, staying under shield of the risen etc.) and i am not sure it is an illigemate one (as long as 90% fit the description you made). Those who fight back or talk to you, would probably quest in the pvp zones anyway (especially if the risk is rewarded). With the zones they can choose, but probably will be mentally prepared at least.

.

Good points BUT merging all servers and creating one rule set is one of the worst ideas that could happen to PvP, pvp ''flag on'' would be ignored just like tournament mode in pvp now is. I really can't understand how can someone not see this or suggest this kind of ''solution'' at all. Let me tell you, making it one big pve server with pvp flagging would NEVER EVER work and that is the worst thing you can do to open world pvp.

[Kurt2013]

I was talking about pvp instances, not pvp flagging. Pvp flagging might work too, but it will definitely be systemwise more complicated and as you say, probably different (worse, if not done right).
As optimal solution i would prefer a consequence system (selfregulating) first (pvp server or pvp instances).
PvP Flagging is really more an approach to give a pve server more pvp options (still think it might be better than uncontrolled open world pvp, but not optimal for people merged from pvp servers).
I'd prefer the instances, too, because in theory it would allow for no change at all to people merged from pvp servers.
I DO NOT want something like in other games where you "ask" for a duel too.

PvP tournament is ignored for far more important reasons (not enough people at the same time up for it, no special statistics or rewards, no rejoin if you crash or if you need to "balance" the teams etc.).