Control area: Faction Favor!

Reading the many posts about Factions, one thing is clear: Many players have problems with the idea that they won't have access to high level maps if their alliance does not win in PvP (alike) matches/missions. My suggestion:

Consider a number of high level maps war area. Fill them with lots of traps, spell casting towers, etc. These have an allignment: The allignment of a Faction (or alliance, this should be worked out later). This is calculated by the number of wins and losses in the PvP Faction games. After a certain period of time (6, 12, 24 hours?) allignments are recalculated.
So if you pass a map of your own allignment you find the traps dissabled and the spellcasting towers may help you when attacking monsters in the neighbourhood. If you pass a map with the allignment of an opposing Faction everything will work against you, and the map becomes very hard. Neutral players will find the 'normal' map, no traps, and towers that don't do anything.

I'd call it 'dynamic mapping'. Such a system can be used in many occasions, e.g. with special events or to reduce running. Keyfactor is that everyone has access all of the time, but the level of difficulty (or rewards, whatever) are differend depending on the actual stage of the game.

From what I understand, control of a particular area is determined by both PvP and PvE play. I am sure there will be co-op missions for PvE folk that will influence the overall battle between the 2 warring factions. In fact, Gaile Gray(I think it was her) mentioned that the strongest guilds/alliances will have a combination of both successful PvP and PvE players.

Or allow neutrality (did I spell that right? can't spell anything this early in the morning). Neutral characters have access to ALL content whether it's under faction Xs' or Ys' control.
This would allow players not wanting to partake in the new system to play the game as they want.
Before I get jumped by someone saying "But then no one would choose a faction and stay neutral so they can get access to everything"; consider that very statement. If no one or few people choose a faction, that means the player base doesn't want to be forced into choosing a side, they want access to the content.
This would also show Anet how many players want to play in the new system. Too many neutrals would show Anet that there is a lack of interest in the new system; too few neutrals would show Anet that there is more interest in the new system.

To reiterate from the Riverside thread about the future of PvE, I think Anet should reconsider the notion of penalising the "losing" side. Let's face it, PvE is popular with the PvE crowd because it's CO-OP, not because people compete directly with each other (which is what the PvP mode is for)

With that in mind, controlling an area - gives bonuses to the area/faction. Not controlling an area - you can still play, but you don't get the bonuses.

That way nobody will find parts of the game that they paid for locked out. What I'd hate to see is if basically there's a huge imbalance between the factions and one side is always winning. Or worse, if people can change sides they keep hopping over to the winning side (and thus making the problem worse)

Just make it so that you have to pay whoever owns the area to access the mission, kind of like how you have to pay 500/1000 gold for Underworld/Fissure of Woe, except this time, you pay it to whoever owns the area.

Also remember the battles will control different areas so one faction might be controling the temple of something and the other faction might be controling the temple of something else.

I really really like how the PvE worlds and the PvP worlds are uniting. They must work together or else neither will get what they want.

Based on the article mentioned in another thread, non allied/guilded people will have basic access to all areas, but still not the "elite" areas.... so still a high level of exclusion.

i think that main reason for veterans stop playing is the lack of high level stuff to do , with that inteligent dificulty system i think it will make the game last much longer , merged with pvp , endless.

if chosing a side means access to high level dificulty game play , im chosing a side.

Chosing a side won't suffice, you'd need to be in an alliance that's strong enough to capture towns. If you are not, you might see a lot less high level stuff than you might think.

i like the idea on the one hand, but on the other, that would suck a bit, just like ToA and the UW but then almost the whole map, it would be cool, but only if it's balanced, if like the whole top 200 guild dicided, like: ok guys lets take that god and we'll win all the time!

20 towns, each to hold for an alliance of 10 guilds with 100 members each = 20,000 people (at max) who can and probably will hold those towns all the time. The 1,980,000 other players can go play Random Arena then...

And OF COURSE, good guilds will band up and lock the others out - that's the most logical thing for them to do. Average players can't win HoH, average players won't hold Towns in factions, too. Only this time it will lock them out from a very large portion of the content.

Hmm, some people got infos wrong. Towns wont be locked from people not controlling them. Its just that people controlling them will have access to elite missions within the towns. You can still access the town all the times, controlling it or not. IMO, each town will have a leader that you can talk to to gain entrance to a new area if you control the town. Then maybe there will be one or two exculsive NPCs and a mission to accomplish.

And not that only half of the towns will be controllable. So you wont be 'locked' from everything that can be done in factions

Ummm you will be locked out from elite missions, which will contain the highest value drop and the greatest challenges. Think how annoying it is when you can't get to FoW/UW due to dumb ass World at War, now multiply by 20(number of cities) by in most cases 24 and then by 7...

Simply put, no areas (cities, missions or quests) should be locked from anyone - it creates strife amoungst the players. It also creates a rift amoung the PvP and PvE players (those that do not enjoy playing in each).
PvE players want the best items for their characters. They will farm hundreds of hours to get those items, go on countless cap runs to get all the skills they want or need. These are parts of the PvE game content. Locking these players from this in anyway shape or form is to take away the game from them.
PvEers could go play PvP or join the PvP-mini games that is being masqueraded as PvE content, but that's not fun for everyone, nor it is what they should have to do.
Alliances with locked up content will exploit the drops, selling them for un-reachable costs forcing yet more farming. PvEers, for the most part, are not going to take part in the PvP to win back the areas. They (we) will simply either stop playing for reasons of boredom or frustration.
The locking of any areas, gear or in game content = a bad move on Anets part, made worse by making all areas only unlockable by PvP or PvP-mini games.
What is the PvP-mini game? Borders are re-drawn by players winning in battle. This will be done by arenas (HoH, GvG type play) or in players competing with others via score instead of killing each other (see videos on the net for examples of these). All PvP isn't a death match type game, PvP is simple players vs players, and PvEers are being literally pushed into it with the possiblity of unlocking content - a double stab to the gut.

speculation, speculation, speculation. Thats all many of this is, its speculation about a bunch of previews done by people who have never played this game, except for the preview. Plus there is still the open beta that i am sure anet will use to change anything that is unwanted. Anet has been very responsive to the gaming community as a whole, so there is no reason they would make it so only a very select few could play these elite missions.

Word to that

Much of that information comes directly from Anet, so it's a bit more than pure speculation:

Granted, they might have some aspects in Faction that are yet unknown to public so that Faction doesn't end up being accessible only for elite players. If I wouldn't have that hope, my pre-order would have been already canceled.

That's not a "beta", it's a "preview". Faction is finished and given that it's only 4 weeks away from release, it's WAY too late for them to change any major aspect of the game's design. IF Faction is what some of us fear it will become, it's already too late.

Yes, in some cases, but not in others. After all, the Worlds at War concept didn't get changed, too, despite a great number of GW players hates it. Anet really DOES seem to like the concept of locking players out from game content...

I completely agree with that.

There are only ONE winner. How can Anet punish the rest of the entire world?
=============

Jeff from Anet had stated in an interview about that the players won't be missing much from the elite mission if they can't do it.

I hope that is true, but I am unsure how you can say "not much" when it is "ELITE" mission.

Maybe it's just me, but with online gamers I think it's probably best to leave the word 'Elite' out of anything having to do with them. As long as it remains skill level > time played, I'm happy. Don't take that the wrong way though, ANet... just knowing there are special missions out there means myself and others will want to play them. If things are lopsided to where we can't, or to where PvE people end up relying even more on PvPers, chapter 3 just may not look all that interesting.

Maybe you're considering the definition of "alliance" to be too narrow. It could refer to a small group of allied guilds or the entire Luxon and Kurzick factions. Until we get to play on Friday, everything posted is speculation regardless of information from ANet (since that can sometimes be ambiguous when no details are available).

From the site FAQ:
They do call this event a preview like you pointed out, but they also call it a beta along with it.
its not necessarly true that they cant change anything. If they do find something wrong with the game during the 3 days, although they might not be able to change the physical game, they can still prepare a patch and have it ready for release.

Also, in responce to the original post, after looking over pictures from the event in Seattle not too long ago, the way it seems it will work, is that if you do not have control of a certain area, but another alliance in your faction does have it, you can pay a certain amount of faction points, and gain access to it.

I saw the pic on gwonline forums I believe, might be able to find it later.

Either way, we'll all find out in 4 more days =-).

I'm all for exclusion. even if i I personally am the one excluded. I love the worlds at war thing. never had an issue with it. you can't have it all.


Furthermore what exactly do you expect ot eb in these missions?

its not like this game has uber gear, just rare skins. seems to me there is no reason to hand everyone everyhting. if you did why would you play? I'd never farm if everything cost 10 gold.

at least wiht really difficult hard ot get to stuff I have somehting interesting to strive for.

Keep in mind this is an opinion nothing more. we clear?

From my understanding, and this is from info all over these forums and from the net (so I fear I can't really point you to one spot - so take it for what you will); each faction can have many alliances. A city under the control of a faction you belong too allows you to purchase access with faction points (earned in the PvP and PvP mini-games). Further, if your alliance is the controlling alliance within that same city, you are granted further benefits, such as discounted items. If your faction is not the one in control of said city, you can enter it, but not enter the mission that is there.
So, if you want access to the missions, you play the PvP (or PvP mini games) to gain faction points. Other wise it seems you can't access the elite missions.
This "assumption" is, like I said, built from many different sources. However, it would make since in the said design from Anet. It rather encourages (read: Forces if you want to play in the end game) PvP play, joining alliances (read: you'd be nuts not to if you wanted to play end game missions) and, as I can see, puts (read: pushes) PvP and PvEers closer.
The faction points, as I read are gained slowly and having points in one faction means switching to the other (to faction zerg and quickly gain access to the content you are wanting) will not be easily done, or at least, not be done quickly (this would mean logging in, checking if a needed area is unlocked then staying on to complete it or logging off and checking the next day - or, becoming a hard core player and play non-stop to get all the content you are needing or wanting).
If it's true, and we will see on Friday, it's a genious system that will, IMO, fail as PvEers (those that do not enjoy or will refuse to PvP) will leave out of frustration or boredom.
I do applaud Anet though, if this above situation is true, it is very well thought out and extremely well done. It will bring those that enjoy both aspects of the game closer and it does give meaning to PvP other than just a Win. Each battle will make a mark in the game world and each player will "leave his/her mark". It's nearly perfect. The only downside; some players despise PvP. I am one of those players and I know there are many others that find PvP (in any of it's forms) to be nerve grinding or dull.
If the above ends up not being completely true, and part of me hopes it is not, then cool.
Anyway, that's what I've come up with so far from the forums here, elsewhere and info in the FAQs.

Here is another thing what if all players jump to one side to get aera content. This will kill the pvp aprt of the game. Juat have all the pve all jump to one side.

One thing to keep in mind, there is Faction control and Allaince Control (which are both seperate). They have stated that you can enter cites (some/all?) and the banners of the person in control will show.

If your faction controls it there will be speed buff's in town, better prices, etc but other's can access it as well (w/o the boon of having control). It's the elite missions from said town that alliance's control that will be locked out.

From pvp player telling anet what do to with AOE update, to the next chapter. I feel that rpg players are shaffed. If I had know this fourm was pve fourm I would have made it known here too.

I feel like there alot people who don't under stand rpg players at all.

This is not a Role Playing Game. it just isn't. its a game which could become more pve oriented but i see tha as unlikley. it was made ot be an alternative to grindcraft and othe rgames that take ages and ages to play.

I'm not trying to be mean here but if you want real roleplaying I'd recommend MUDs which i still play, or how about a game with more persistent world depth a la eve online.


this game is about skills and using them with skill. the heart of this game is its skill system not its story.

That's a good point and maybe that's where the problem really is. Even in that CGW article that came out in Feburary, the writter asked if non-PvP players would embrace the new game mechanic in Factions. Someone named Flannum (whomever he is) said "We believe the vast majority of players will want to participate in the faction warfare."
There's more to it than that and he continues on. To me, he hasn't a clue as to why I play GW. It's not PvP and it sure isn't a desire for a medevil sports sim (PvP mini games or "competitive missions) where I waste my time trying to gain points to see my name move up and down a score ladder. - lol -
If this guy thinks the way all Anet devs think, I think you might have put your finger on the problem. Speculation of course.

The above is quoted from CGW pg 46 from Feburary 2006. Check it out if you have the mag.

It may not be an EQ or NWN, but it is indeed a roleplaying game (lite anyway). Anyone saying otherwise opens a gate for a lawsuit vs Anet for false advertising, and I'm sure someone with too little time and too much money would love to jump on Anet to make some money.
Try this, send yourself an invite to try out the Factions pre-view. When you get the email, read the ad in it and note that Anet calls GW a roleplaying game. It even boasts about the role playing awards it has won.
So, if Anet is still considering this game a RPG, I guess we should continue to hope it plays as one.

your right it is not a rpg, it is a pvp game! I have already bought CE I will try GWF. If I don't like it I am not going to buy another Anet game agin.


When I had first bought the game

Note it says "Guild Wars focuses on what's fun in a role-playing game"

http://www.gweurope.net/images/preor...20-%20Back.jpg

Hmmm.

Well, I've never played Eve online, but I can't see how any computer game could ever be a "true" RPG. If you want to really develop a character, and interact with other characters in a setting where the system is secondary to storytelling, then pen and paper is your best option. Nothing can ever replace people sitting around a table "creating a story." Not even a MUD, which is still confined by computer text and not imagination.

When a Computer Game refers to being an "RPG", it usually means a Balder's Gate type experience, where assigning skill points and gaining levels somehow equals an RPG.

If Balder's Gate, WoW, Diablo, Dungeon Siege, etc, can call themselves RPGs, then certainly Guild Wars qualifies.

As for the debate about whether GW is more PvP focused than PvE focused, well that's a debate that rages on. However, since there are those who play PvE exclusively and enjoy it, you'll be hard pressed to convince them it's a PvP only game. I think Anet didn't realize how important PvE was to the typical gamer, and I suspect that they will have to continue to improve the PvE experience in order to be sucessful.

It's actually page 64. Eric Flannum is a designer, for what it's worth.

Another money quote from him: "We hope to encourage players to replay the story missions while maintaining and reinforcing shared goals." Now, that was something missing from Prophecy.

I read somewhere that PvE and PvP will both play a part in gaining "faction" for Alliances... only time will tell if this will be sucessful or not. I, for one, am not even about to complain about a system I haven't even tried yet.

I totally agree, but eve is near total freedom. check it out the roleplaying is so vastly more possible.



@ guest- i'm not saying they do or don't call it a roleplaying game. i'm trying to show that regardless of the advertising it really isn't. its a whole different animal and is a fairly unique version of a multiplayer online game.

maybe there is mroe roleplaying in facitons but i think some of that roleplaying you desire is better found elsewhere,

one last thing I think you roleplayers(me included) could roleplay more in a mixed pvp pve environment. after all roleplaying is about people. and people are in pvp too so maybe those of us who love pen and paer should put together a pve/pvp roleplay guild. get into the war. one day you are the underdogs on the losing side, another day you are the memebers of the aristocracy of the winning empire.

its the community that makes roleplay what it is not the game, those other games i listed have better roleplay communities, this game does not.

good luck finding what you want out of it, whatever that may be.

regards, cyril

64... yea, thanks. Need more coffee or new glasses or something it seems. And thanks, I hadn't a clue as to who Flannum was.
I wasn't knocking the idea at all, I actually think it's utter genious. However, I despise PvP type games. I played them for so many years, I'm just burned out badly by them. A couple of posts back I mentioned how really well thought out it was.
The problem is though, it's not built with PvE players in mind, the pure ones anyway. My entire guild is 100% PvE, so I can only assume there are many more people out there that see these PvP mini-games as a flop and bad idea.
PvE players can play a part in gaining faction. There's even been posts about it and it's in the FAQ for Factions. PvE players simply take part in Competitive Missions (PvP mini game), Cooperative Missions for score (competing for points = PvP - if you don't agree see modern day sports; golf for example is players testing skill against a course and the elements, but score is what wins the day) or just dragging our feet into an arena and PK (PvP for kills).
Why do I post this and keep posting it? Since Anet does listen to the player base, I am hoping they see this and "fix" the reliance on PvP to move the borders around. There are many people that don't like the Favor system we have now, and this border moving and reliance on PvP type missions makes it worse for us.
Is it a mistake? I think it is and I think Anet has considered it a mistake as well. Why? Lets look at what we know so far (and this may all be proved wrong, and I sure hope it does).
Adding true neutrality would allow all players to gain access to all content. There would be no locked content for them, therefore, we all know a mass number of players would opt to be neutral. In this, they can play without worring about PvP and mini games. This would defeat Anet design as there would be a shortage of players for these alliance battles and such. Anet's answer to it, lock content.
Faction hoping has been answered by adding faction points. If PvE players are able, you can bet they will hop faction to whichever has the current mission they need. They would do this to bypass the PvP mini games they don't want to partake in. If faction hoping is possible and able to be done quickly, there again, there will be more people missing from the PvP games.
There are many other ways to bypass the PvP games, but Anet has countered all that anyone has been able to come up with (which is why I said "genious and well thought out").
From my point of view, Factions is one of the best created and most thought out game I have come across in a long time. I'm absolutely amazed at the way it is put together. If it weren't so leant towards a game style I despise I would have not canceled my pre-order to take a wait and see approach.
If they didn't think it was a mistake, then they wouldn't have "locked" the PvE players in the way they did. All angles covered to make sure there is no way around the system. Cause we all know, if there's a way around PvP, people will take it to get the stuff (content) they want.
Like most, I'll be trying the Preview and if I find that end game is not 100% reliant on PvP and PvP mini games, then I'll rush back out and grab my copy.
Always keep in mind, PvP is not all about killing other players, it's simply players vs players. That can be for any goal, score or idea that can be fit into the genre. It's that cometition that I find boring and want no part of. I compete all day, I'm rushed all day. I want to relax when I play a game.

Good thoughts, but when you really despise the PvP part of any game at all, I don't think you should be forced into it. I mean, I bought the original GW because 1) it's free to play online and having many many other bills to pay, this was great 2) because PvP was optional. Yes, PvP optional was the second thing I checked when I looked at this game.
GW says players will not be forced into PvP, but that is not competely true, much in the same way it's called a role playing game in your example. Locking content or placing content where one has to PvP to get it, is not fair - as it does force you to PvP to get it, whatever that content may be.

The elite missions are meant as a REWARD. Can't Anet create a reward system without folk throwing their toys out of their prams and complaining that they aren't good enough to obtain the rewards?

Sure, probably the best guilds and the strongest alliances will control the towns but then that is because they are adept and dedicated players - they deserve it.

Anyway, no-one knows how control of towns will be taken yet. It could include both PvP and PvE elements and I can't see highly competitive PvP guilds hacking down hundreds of AI enemies in an effort to get into a high end area to farm more AI enemies for their rare heavy tengu armour or godly swords etc. I beleive the guilds/alliances that will gain control of towns will consist of folk that actually want the rewards and have both avid PvP and PvE players.

Later listen to this I think the RPg may work. It goes into detail for any one who wants to listen to it.

It is from a radio show about games.
http://www.gamingsteve.com/podcasts/...2006-03-20.mp3

I guess I am knowing they are working on the rpg. I guess I was over reacting.

just add more lore and fix my elemental i am happy!

I am sorry I over reacted! It is all these pvp players that cause me to worry.

I also twould like to see the rpg, I guess i want to take alook at where they can improve.

But then, the rewards are there for only the hard core players, those with the time to play in that manner. The casual gamer is left out to dry, unless it is always available.
Dedicated/hardcore player/ones with no life (like me) - can get in tons of hours a day. We can stay in there and keep at it.
Casual/limited hour players (like majority of my guild) - log in during the evening on certain planned days. If area is not unlocked or available when we get together, no mission, no content. UW and FoW is like that now.

All I'm saying is there is better ways to reward players. Locking out what little content there is, isn't the way to go.

My argument with your proposal is, having this would make the game to boring. Dont you see, having to fight for the territory gives you something to do even after youve done all the missions, gotten all the armor money weapons etc. You fight for your side...

Items are rewards
XP are rewards
Faction points are a reward
Fame is a reward
Rank emotes are a reward
Money is a reward
Victory parades are rewards

Access to areas is NOT a reward, the absence of access to areas is a PUNISHMENT. That's how 95% of all players will see that. When someone has a crystalline sword and I don't have one, the guy with the sword can feel good and I STILL can play in every aspect of the game. Sure, I might envy his shiny crystalline sword, but other than that it doesn't really affect me if he has one and I don't. These "access to area" types of "rewards" basically work not by giving something to someone but by TAKING AWAY something from all other players. That's why people don't mind people having crystalline swords but mind these specific sort of "rewards". Anet doesn't seem to get it, though.

We shall see, we shall see

I think that there should be more relation between the PvP world and the PvE world other than simply HoH.

One prob with having dynamic maps is that in a mixed team of 2 factions, or a faction and neutral players (if its possible) is that the map would attack all members of the team. COuld be interesting.

Relation yes, reliance no. The Factions system that we do know about does the opposite of what Anet is wanting it to do. Rather then bring the two closer, it's creating a bigger rift... that is unless you enjoy both aspects of the game.
There is no PvE content to aid in moving the borders as was advertised (unless Anet has left something out of their Factions FAQ. Those "Competitve Missions" they speak of are even refered to in the Original GW FAQ as PvP games. Coop Missions are a passive PvP style game with players trying to out score each other, still, it's PvP. So, PvEers are totally reliant on PvP games to have access to the content.
As Fantus said, that's not a reward, that's a punishment. PvEers either PvP or stand around and wait and hope for the best.
Anet should have left out the PvP mini games and instead just looked at the current PvE mission system. Each mission in PvE is done probably tons of times a day by the players. Each time that mission is completed, it should have counted as a "win" towards that faction. That would bring meaning to doing the missions over and over and would give the PvE'ers something to do. Instead, we have what is listed in the FAQ; scoring against other teams and a silly ladder system that means beans to PvE players. With the ladder system in place I can even see some putzes not allowing "below ladder rank X" into their group, such as we have in some groups now with fools saying "rank X only"... and these are in PuGs for PvE missions. Bad move on Anets part. Let the griefing begin.
Anet could also have brought the two sides "closer" by locking all PvP arenas and mini games untill several PvE missions had been completed by the players. Such as going from Pre to Post searing. The players would have to complete several missions taking several hours each to then gain enough faction points to purchase their way into the arenas. Or, even see if the arenas are unlocked in a day or so if enough PvE missions had been completed. Players would then have a reliance on PvE and PvE missions to unlock PvP content. If the PvE is reliant on PvP means "bringing them closer" then PvP reliant on PvE means the same. IMO.
As I said before, the system in play is genious. It's well thought out on all levels. It's poorly executed and doesn't fit for pure PvE players or those that despise the competition side of games (those looking to relax when playing). Anet sees this and does a good job of removing possible work arounds to get out of being locked into a faction. The players wanting any end game content at all must partake in the faction wars and that means (from what we see in the FAQ and what is in all posted articles thus far) taking part in PvP or PvP mini games. Otherwise content is locked out.

I would like for Anet to work on what rpg player love the must, that is adventure. I agree locking rpg out from quest and mossions is a bad thing.

Rpg players are not looking to pvp in any way. They are looking for adventure, and story.

I think it is more a lack of under standing RPG players. That is why there is so meny fights too, between RPG players and Pvp players.