PvP instances

[Entropy]

I agree with these comments made by kidberg especially the one I've highlighted here. I do not like the idea of guild v guild as in some guilds like RIP! only one or two people pk.

 

I don't really understand what relevance, if any, has how many PKers are in a guild..

 

With the current playerbase, the matches will be sparing for some level ranges i agree (it's not even like there's going to be ultra-fast queues 24/7 at any level range), but the size of the playerbase will impact any team-based game feature, including your proposal.

 

My proposal solves this problem in a very elegant way, since the players themselves decide if they want to go against a team or not. A team of 3 very pros could be an even match for a team of 6 pros for example.

[Starlite]

Deleted that line, misunderstood a previous post, I realize now that the guilds would be created for the 2 teams, These can be set guilds e.g. Red team and blue team. I support that ofc. That would need an automatic kick and automatic return to you own guild after the instance

Edited May 11, 2011 by Starlite

[Infect]

I have to say that I agree with Ent's idea. Even though I understand the debate about not trusting who will be on your team, I know we have been on instances where we have not known exactly who our teammates are. If a player causes a problem in an instance such as not participating or just dying quickly to make the team fail, there should be a feature similar to other games to notify mods or whoever that someone is "leeching". The point of the guilds being overpowered is an issue, but I am sure that an overpowered guild will eventually feel bored because no one will challenge them....

 

I also love the thoughts of multiple lives. Not only will this promote a longer instance, but it will encourage pk'rs to *hopefully* do this instance because there is no cost of a rosto (even though KF and DP are no-drop..)

 

As for cooldowns, I would imagine this would be considered. I wouldnt recommend completely cutting cooldowns, but maybe reducing them to a certain degree? (e.g. 5 secs on all items, or half the cooldowns of all items)

 

I also agree with the various games that are offered, but how will you code the flag? pick it up as a weapon and maybe "use with" on your station after you have retrieved the flag? Things to be discussed...

 

My 2 cents

[Entropy]

The capture the flag can be done buy having two flags at each fortress. We can already make objects on the maps disappear/appear and the one with the flag will have a red name tag or something.

[Infect]

The capture the flag can be done buy having two flags at each fortress. We can already make objects on the maps disappear/appear and the one with the flag will have a red name tag or something.

 

Sounds neat, what about the map? Will it be one single map or will there be a random chance of maybe several maps that you might be placed in? Other things to think about

 

We can also use existing maps such as KF or Thelinor that have forts in them or something similar to a fort.

[karolus]

For me Ent's idea sounds better, i would like to know who go with me befor start instances, it will enable usage special tactics fitted to team.

but can i ask what about BroD, GSM, BOD and other "special" weapons and armors?

I think that will be nice limit armors and weapon, so that abilities not equipment decide about win.

[Entropy]

Well, you can verbally agree on what items to use. If a team breaks the agreement, you don't compete with that team in the future. Similarly, if a player breaks the agreements, teams can ban that player from joining them.

 

Sounds neat, what about the map? Will it be one single map or will there be a random chance of maybe several maps that you might be placed in? Other things to think about

 

We can also use existing maps such as KF or Thelinor that have forts in them or something similar to a fort.

 

Not sure yet. Probably different maps for different game types.

[groomsh]

First i was thinking that random queuing would be the best way.

But after more thought i like the pre-made teams idea better.

At least from my point of view (i'm total pk/pvp noob) i would certainly join a match/tournament between guilds or friends.

This is completely different from current KF setup, because if i go there with few of my friends to fight just for fun, we get slaughtered by pr0s and some abominations running around KF ... Well i don't mind being killed by them, but it ruins our fun.

I'm sure, that random queuing would not make me enter one of these instances. However i'll gladly join friend/guild/inter-guild events just for pure fun.

For me the fighting aspect is not about going on a PK area and hit/dodge whatever i can see - it's more like a social event where i can have fun with other people.

Korrodes idea is more for the "true warrior spirits" not for an average Joe player that fights only to get some exp or to defend against the more common critters of Draia.

[Nova]

I think both ideas are good and will add something the game doesn't already have. The more stuff added to break up the tedium of the leveling grind the better. I know it's a lot of work to design and implement both but I'm not saying I'd want to see both things tomorrow, just kind of wondering if voting for one means we'd never see the other idea in game.

[Aislinn]

First choice for me would be to see both ingame since as was pointed out, they are totally different and each has a different goal. We're comparing apples and oranges here.

 

However, in my opinion, Entropy's idea isn't different enough from a basic "pk guild vs pk guild" event in KF [where basically the power team(s) have already been formed (pk guilds)] from what we have now to warrant choosing it over Korrode's as an only option.

 

That said, if only one can come ingame, I still vote for Korrode's version.

(Reasons already stated in the two threads on this issue)

I believe an excellent proposal has been made by Korrode and he has more than satisfactorily addressed the concerns and possible problems, and technical aspects of "How to do this".

 

I know I personally much prefer a shorter instance and I love the random aspect and feel it will balance teams better and bring players into contact with more people in their range than they currently do come into contact with.

 

I also believe that Korrode's version will bring more NEW people (new to pk, not necessarily new to EL) into the pvp and pk environment since it would be easy to do, and would be just a burst of fun (able to be immediately repeated or not based on player preference) rather than a long drawn out strategic power-struggle that people unfamiliar with PK or PvP will find overwhelming and will stay away from as they do now.

 

I would participate in Korrode's version. Entropy's...not so much, no offense, as you know

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You can't go wrong with Korrode's advice and knowledge on PK and PvP related issues. Nobody knows it better than he does (as well as, maybe, but not better) and he has an excellent grasp of the playerbase as a whole, not just the exclusive pr0 pk niche. He has hit a home run with this one, in my opinion. Heck, it even sounds like fun to me!

 

As to the uber-stats bought player issues: It's lonely at the top. We all know that golden rule. Nobody forces them to be so far removed from the average playerbase. It's a choice they made. However, there are consequences and one of those is nobody wants to go up against a character like that. Another is you get bored pretty quickly. I don't think game mechanics should take into account falsely elevated stats. It's not the natural progression nor is it an accurate representation of the general playerbase. (And don't even post saying "But everyone does it, of course it's natural and an accurate representation, where have you been these past few years, Aislinn?". B.S. on both counts.)

[Rhapsodist]

Suppose we go with Ent's idea and there is the situation where a guild lacks enough fighters or there aren't enough online, can we make it possible to fight together in a team with mutually allied guilds?

 

I think this would add more worth to allies like it used to years ago.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Sonny

[groomsh]

However, in my opinion, Entropy's idea isn't different enough from a basic "pk guild vs pk guild" event in KF [where basically the power team(s) have already been formed (pk guilds)] from what we have now to warrant choosing it over Korrode's as an only option.

 

Well yeas and no, try to go into KF with bunch of 80 a/d people and your fun ends in no time

As Vanyel stated in another topic, there were times when people could go to KF and watch or to enjoy fair fights.

This is no longer possible due to some (or a lot nowadays) "ebul" PKers who kill everything that moves - well that's ok, it's a PK area, but it spoils the fun of those who don't train a/d as primary skills.

Therefore i like Ents idea much better.

[Aislinn]

However, in my opinion, Entropy's idea isn't different enough from a basic "pk guild vs pk guild" event in KF [where basically the power team(s) have already been formed (pk guilds)] from what we have now to warrant choosing it over Korrode's as an only option.

 

Well yeas and no, try to go into KF with bunch of 80 a/d people and your fun ends in no time

As Vanyel stated in another topic, there were times when people could go to KF and watch or to enjoy fair fights.

This is no longer possible due to some (or a lot nowadays) "ebul" PKers who kill everything that moves - well that's ok, it's a PK area, but it spoils the fun of those who don't train a/d as primary skills.

Therefore i like Ents idea much better.

Yes vanyel is right. It's very true. But how does that issue support Entropy's idea over Korrode's? It's the same problem regardless.

[groomsh]

Yes vanyel is right. It's very true. But how does that issue support Entropy's idea over Korrode's? It's the same problem regardless.

You can agree with your friends to go and have fun pking - i mean two teams of your friends, be it guilds or not.

Let's say 10 people who are friends/know each other/respect each other agree to make an instance, they create 2 predefined teams and can go into an instance.

That's something what randomness cannot achieve.

[Immortelle]

Yes vanyel is right. It's very true. But how does that issue support Entropy's idea over Korrode's? It's the same problem regardless.

You can agree with your friends to go and have fun pking - i mean two teams of your friends, be it guilds or not.

Let's say 10 people who are friends/know each other/respect each other agree to make an instance, they create 2 predefined teams and can go into an instance.

That's something what randomness cannot achieve.

 

 

Problem with this idea is the fact that many of us are in different time zones and not always able to do this event. On the other hand i like the idea of random, meet new people,make new friends,trying to learn something my friends and i maybe dont know and so on the list could go.

[Entropy]

I hope that those who want random teams realize that there will be no way in hell to exclude 'dirty players' from instances. And I don't only mean in your team, I mean against your team too. If Korrode's idea gets implemented, then someone constantly starts broding people left and right, I will perma ban anyone who complains to me about it (or who will say that they won't go to instances anymore until the problem is solved).

[Nova]

there couldn't be some kind of 'vote them off the island' command for the team who gets stuck w/ a griefer? ATM there is no way to remove a dirty player from around the neno team and that seems to be swept under the rug again and again.

[Entropy]

And if there were such a command, how would it be useful?

[Nova]

Can't speak for everyone else but I'm pretty sure I'd rather be down 1 player who isn't actually playing then keep him on the team to mess things up more.

[Aislinn]

Very useful.

It is in no teams' best interest to use this command willy nilly. Nobody is going to want to reduce their chance to win by getting rid of somebody they don't desperately need to if they don't absolutely have to.

 

However, it also is in a team's best interest to make sure their team plays at least reasonably honorably. If people start letting chronic brod-ers and griefers who either die on purpose, or stand there and do nothing on purpose, or blow up their teammates, etc., stay on the team, very quickly that info makes the rounds and people won't go.

 

Now that said, you can't equate griefers like that, with players' desire to use this instance. But there IS a limit to how much trouble is just too much and ruins everyone else's time. So if players say "Screw this, it's just not worth it, what a shame a great idea is ruined by a lack of ability to remove a moron, and stop this", you can't say "omfg I was right, people don't like this!!111"

 

Players want to play. They don't WANT to HAVE to use this command but it sure keeps things on an even keel just knowing it's there.

[Dugur]

Dirty Players are no threat to random PvP instance. Worst thing possible is probably BRoD, which is easily evaded with CotU. Even if there's someone who enters just to brod ppl to the stone age it's no biggie, they'll die fast without own team supporting. The team will not help bastards, just like we assume that in non-random PvP instance the teams that agree not to use certain items will obey the rules.

Actually using BRoD in instance is good way to reduce opponents free emu, CotU is heavy and you need more than one.

 

What comes to other ways of causing grief in instance, only reason to bother is to annoy the crap out of someone. You make a big fuzz about it and they might get some kicks out of it. You kill them first and continue - no biggie. There are also in game rules that forbid certain behaviour. Also, if the PvP instance is more fun than getting ppl to whine (which can actually be quite amusing) you are more likely to enjoy the instance rather than try to annoy someone.

 

Aye for Mr K.

 

#edit: Must add that I just love the idea of guild being able to challenge another guild and they end up in a no loss environment. This is guaranteed to bring action between guilds with avg players. Rather see both implemented.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Dugur

[Entropy]

With a 3v3 instance, if you kick someone off you pretty much lost the fight. Then after the fight is over, the kicked person can join the queue again, and cause more griefing, and so on.

[Aislinn]

With a 3v3 instance, if you kick someone off you pretty much lost the fight. Then after the fight is over, the kicked person can join the queue again, and cause more griefing, and so on.

Agreed. Which is why I said, it won't be used loosely or frequently. But some mechanism should be in place for those really bad times a team would need that option. You know as well as I do, it is impossible to predict (they will always come up with something new or worse than we could imagine) or come up with all ways somebody could be SO troublesome as to make a team willing to remove somebody (even with bad odds as a result).

[Nova]

if you don't kick someone who is messing with your team then you can probably make the same argument about losing. what about not letting the kicked person join the queue again for ## of EL days? penalty for being a buttface.

[Entropy]

if you don't kick someone who is messing with your team then you can probably make the same argument about losing. what about not letting the kicked person join the queue again for ## of EL days? penalty for being a buttface.

 

Besides for the fact that this could be abused, it requires even more work on my side (not only a kick vote system, but also a new ban system). Very complicated solutions, where my idea is very elegant about it and allows no abuse (except for the first time).