open world pvp

[Religolibri]

I never encoutered any issue in fury. Sometimes I had to switch zones because I couldn't quest. That's all, not an issue at all.

[Derled]

It has always been an issue. Not only in AoC. Denying it, will only hurt your own population. This is the natural flow of a "free for all" system that favors the strong inbalanced.

It only works as long as there are enough people to guild, group up or bother to help. If neither system nor population changes, it will be like a small club of likeminded people stagnating and slowly disappearing or dominated by a chosen few. If such an environment suits you, fine, but i doubt it is the majority.

Also what the OP suggested are not watertight boundaries. You can also see it as expanded options without having to merge fury with crom. If the option is "ambush favored and big guild zergs" or "same minis over and over on crom" then don't be surprised, if both do not lead to more pvp population, because imo the amount of people these options are fun to is not high. I am sure there is some middle ground...and letting players choose within a solid consequence system sounds best. Nothing should be disabled...but everything should have a consequence and risk involved.

And if the maps are so big and pvp avoidable already...then why do you find pvp only at bottlenecks, near guards or entrances nowadays? Gankers choose this for a reason...

What is so bad in letting players decide? You describe the different rulesets, yes. But each has pros and cons. This does not make the suggestion bad. If you don't want someone to farm beguiler blood, then there are ways in both rulesets to stop or annoy him. Equally he/she can avoid you doing it...it is just different, but not ruling each other out. And what is better or not, is highly subjective AND dependant on mood...and isn't that exactly the point of the suggestion?

And trust me, i have spent hours in open world skirmish and know that it can be fun. But this also means i do not close my eyes to the drawbacks and the effects of such a system and that it could not be improved. And i can imagine it not being fun for everyone and would like more people participating in pvp...because this means more variety and fun, too. And surely you agree, that a more complex pvp situation with more than 2 solo players (like solo players, groups, guilds and zergs all around) is preferable?

I thought we were playing AOC and not hellokitty online?

Usually this happens when u kill someone

OH FU*K U PIECE OF S*** im level 79 and U GANK ME,

really? that much rage, just because i saw an opportunity to kill him

And then i rememb good memories back in the days, when he fight back and not cry like a bit*h. get balls or go to crom. understood? i hope.

[Bonera]

One serverver should be made. With 3 instances choice.
PVE EPIC PVP! but the rewards should differ.
So if u want to get more reward u have to risk and go pvp zone(Rage rule set).

If u want a friendly environment,love and peace attitude with RP and unicorns and rainbows go pve instance but u get less reward.

Difference in rewards should not be dramaticaly different but different.

epic - well who goes there anyways now? mainly used on pvp servers for actually not to encounter pvp.

REMOVE GUARDS IN PVP INSTANCE -i think thats obvious

[Religolibri]

How can people think RPing could be decent in pve rules is beyond me. Everything is fine as it is.

[Kurt2013]

@Derled:
The denial is still strong as is the lobby. But no small wonder after years of filtering...

I am NOT saying attacking others in a pvp environment is bad. This comes with open pvp and someone has to take that part. But it comes with consequences, because real people are involved. I am describing a common effect in such environments. If the border conditions fit (as community, new player influx, learning curve, motivation, player options etc.), this can work and be fun. But at the moment they do NOT fit. So, if you keep denying it, you will only hurt yourself like a predator who suddenly finds there is no prey left. If the brutal and harsh world is only brutal to one type of player, i would not call it brutal, but boring and stupid. A real brutal environment would be brutal for everyone involved.

Surely this is not the only reason for population decrease and the suggestion is not the holy grail, but seriously: Where are the drawbacks? (except less drama and less onesided gameplay, but these are gains, not drawbacks, imo...but i guess it depends on the point of view)

Some will use the pve rules to be safe, but on the other hand (as i mentioned before) many will choose the additional thrill of a pvp environment. If there are even some changes to make this more fun, without removing the possibilities, it will be a win-win situation.

You can only change people so much. You can filter them out....but then don't be surprised, if they are gone. With the suggestion, they can be gone temporarily without transferring and it makes it easier for them to try pvp again without transferring back.

Tweakable and balancing issues can be centered about the cooldown, path usage, fast travel, xp multipliers, loot rules etc.. In this issues mistakes can be made, too....(look at Boneras post and i think noite had some good suggestions here too in another thread).

So i can to a point understand your resentment since we are dealing with a team, that does not know the open pvp environment in their own game well probably and given the time needed to correct mistakes or even change minor easy things. But wouldn't constructive comments here be better, than trying to belittle others with absurd comments?

[Derled]

decreasing population has nothing to do with open world pvp, or the current system there is.

Decreasin population is because this game is totally CORRUPTED, no anti hack programs, exploiting. and then beyond the most important reason, it became gear based, class based, why play barb when i can pick conq, why take demo when necro is better, why take sin when ranger got auto target + gps track system, this is the problem

main problems here are because of funcom, they dont take anykind of action towards on ppl who are corrupted here, and ofc cheating, but they wont do anything about it, expect push my forum account to bann list, and they really think it solved anything,

gosh, even in WarZ you are unable to use *****

[Kurt2013]

Well, it can be both, can't it?
This does not rule out the necessity to counter the decrease in population you always have through unconsensual pvp by making it more consensual or more fun for all involved. What you described are just the border conditions i described too, which are not working. In the beginning you had enough new players to counter effects and it was still fun to try and team and fight...guilds could grow and develop. This all has become considerable harder through the server move, the engine, the focus on big guilds, the gear gap, progression curves in pvp/pve etc.. In some areas there have been improvements (like comboskipping, gem stacking, bk buffs etc.), but they also are countered by new bad stuff

The OP had just one suggestion that might work positively in the area of consensuality or at least do no harm (except to those who do harm too).

[Radek87]

One serverver should be made. With 3 instances choice.
PVE EPIC PVP! but the rewards should differ.
So if u want to get more reward u have to risk and go pvp zone(Rage rule set).

Ofc, sure and all people will sit on pve zone and trolls each others about, XXXplayer noob, YYYplayer no, u noob, XXXplayer come pvp zone, YYYplayer is offline.

[kardisk]

As some posted here moving from pvp to pve depending on mood is a win win situation and is a win situation for funcom if they want to keep this game.

I gave you the ex of rage that is what funcom gets by supporting hardcore pvpers "empty servers" but i was just trowing ideas because i see dark clouds ahead of this game.

by the way i enjoy pvp and was big defender of open world pvp and i never like to play on crom because it gets me bored but i want to play my game with more ppl and i dont like to see them, or be, on the other side of the wall.

[Loaf-of-Evil]

@Derled: blah blah gamez r seriouz buziness

This IS a game. I mean, you wrote a novel explaining how part of the human conscious is determined by pvp on a pvp server.

Why not erase the herrings on the trail and the smoke screen and say:

Multiple ways to respond to ganking:

1. Kill them for ganking you
2. Get your friends to come and help camp them
3. Put a call out to your guild to get them
4. Switch instances
5. Switch zones
6. Switch characters
7. Etc, on and on

So many ways to go around ganking. BUT, if you just want to avoid open world pvp, and pve grind your character without interuption, a pvp server is not fo you anyways.

All of this is blatantly obvious. Why so hard to see the forest for the trees??