It could potentially be rather simple to take care of... aside from the coding, which could be tough... Wrath of the Gods. Throw the obscenities, first warning, bolt from the blue, leaves you crippled for your entire stay in town. Second offense, your CD key is banned five minutes and you're blasted to the login page.
If you're waiting five minutes for the ban to expire, that can feel like a long time. Even the most ardent of the obscene will tire rather quickly of it.
Proposal: PvP within existing PvE zones.
MSecorsky
PieXags
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Schorny
For me, strategy is not about to have the possibility to get everything you need when in demand.
If you are running a damage focused build and someone outdamages you, I think it is far better to try to counter the enemy with everything you have with you. It would be very easy to switch to a complete different build to exactly counter what the enemy has. But the enemy would do the same, so you are constantly switching builds... And for big fights: who would need monks, mesmers and rangers? 15 air spikes will throw out so much damage that everyone will instantly die. combined with a nice edge of extinction everyone will die all the time... If you are fighting an 8 people air spike team, you can defeat them by shutting them down, splitting them up or just plain surviving the first few waves. But what if you are facing 20 of them? How would you counter it? Because there are so many people, the air spikers can go back behind the frontline and recharge, then attack, go back recharge,... with 8v8 this isn't possible, but with a 100vs100 it is easily doable... I don't think you will have much strategy here... and if you can switch team anytime you want - how can there be a strategy? People will keep switching teams all the time for easy kills... |
In a battle so large, any large-scale onslaught of professions can be matched AND countered at the same time. If we have 20 warriors, they'll have just as many. You get the idea. How can you stop 20 air spikers? Simple. 20 Air spikers. Besides they can't just masacre anything and everything, it takes a while to cast off those spells, and a chain lightning can't take out 10 people. They would eventually fall, whether by other casters or by some other professions, everything evens out. As you'd know if you'd ever played such a battle in another game.
On another note, more on-topic.
No, I don't think you should just be able to "stab someone in the back" it would have to be teams or something because otherwise everyone would kill everyone, and there's no point to that.
bobrath
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Talesin Darkbriar
The problem still persists however - it is very common to come across people indulging in all sorts of EULA-bannable offenses daily...
In the OP I stated: "there is no permanent xp loss in GW, so any "inconvenience" would only be temporary. Secondly, you don't drop any gear or coin when defeated, so the incentive to simply have packs of players roaming zones looking for "marks" is zero." And there it is, the scream and wail about losing something if PvP was implemented. What? Pride? And yes, no doubt people will find all sorts of interesting things to do in city zones (or wherever) that might make things unpleasant, but take the scenario 10 seconds further down the road - retribution. Your little prank isn't going to be much fun when somebody you ticked off makes you his new hobby. |
The only way to make a griefer regret their actions is to deny them the ability to continue griefing - banning (temp or perm), global muting, lockdown, or other ideas like that. These are all actions that should only be given out by Anet reps, if you allow the general populace to give it out... hello abuse!
PippinTook
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Prince Daniel
See my duelling post, i think a much better solution (if i do say so myself)
|
firstwave
How about this?
Just make 1 area in each region (ascalon, kryta, Shiverpeak, crystal desert, ring of fire) for pvp only. There has to be a level cap like the arenas. Basically, you can solo pvp or team up. You gain nothing for winning and you lose nothing for dying. It is just there for... FUN! Wouldnt that be great? Also there should be a filter which you can toggle on/off. ON means you only want to fight a selected person, or OFF means you can fight anyone that has the filter on OFF.
From my perspective, I just want to use this to test out builds and 1vs1 with friends. Maybe have a W/Mo Vs. W/Mo just to kill time... I bet it will be popular because I bet 60% of GW population are tired of team play. Sometimes don't you just wanna do some 1 vs 1? Isn't that what MMORPG is all about?
Just make 1 area in each region (ascalon, kryta, Shiverpeak, crystal desert, ring of fire) for pvp only. There has to be a level cap like the arenas. Basically, you can solo pvp or team up. You gain nothing for winning and you lose nothing for dying. It is just there for... FUN! Wouldnt that be great? Also there should be a filter which you can toggle on/off. ON means you only want to fight a selected person, or OFF means you can fight anyone that has the filter on OFF.
From my perspective, I just want to use this to test out builds and 1vs1 with friends. Maybe have a W/Mo Vs. W/Mo just to kill time... I bet it will be popular because I bet 60% of GW population are tired of team play. Sometimes don't you just wanna do some 1 vs 1? Isn't that what MMORPG is all about?
ManadartheHealer
I like PieXags' idea about an ongoing PvP battle (in a separate district in towns would make this really awesome). I would enjoy it if it were team-based or a Free-for-all.
See, the thing about this is, if you didn't like it, you wouldn't have to play it. You still have your old, boring style PvP. It's all really about options. The more freedom you have, the more fun things are, because you do not feel like you have to do any certain thing.
See, the thing about this is, if you didn't like it, you wouldn't have to play it. You still have your old, boring style PvP. It's all really about options. The more freedom you have, the more fun things are, because you do not feel like you have to do any certain thing.
grayclay88
i agree totally with manadar.
I cant wrap my mind around one thing: y must u guys care so much if its balanced? or about the strategy envolved? i mean, i like strategy as much as the next person (stratego comes to mind) but i wont give up a chance to take my elementalist and blast sum peeps in a massive pvp. How could anyone not?
I cant wrap my mind around one thing: y must u guys care so much if its balanced? or about the strategy envolved? i mean, i like strategy as much as the next person (stratego comes to mind) but i wont give up a chance to take my elementalist and blast sum peeps in a massive pvp. How could anyone not?
Drakron
Funny how a tread asking for PK end up being another PvP debate (and no, they are not the same) ...
Ikinsey
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Talesin Darkbriar
Consider other games where PvP is allowed in most places; Lineage 2 and Shadowbane come to mind. The population quickly falls into a self-policing mode where normal courtesy and respect for each other is quickly established.
Here are several of the more common concerns, and what occurred in these games as a result of them: |
Talesin Darkbriar
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by johnnylange
All I have to say is: Play the game and quit throwing a tantrum over every person that does something stupid in the game.
|
I can never quite figure out why I bother posting something carefully worded - to attemtp not to offend - when jerks like you come and state something like the quote above.
I'll try to keep to single syllables in the future, thanks.
Talesin
Schorny
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PieXags
Anyone who enjoys a challenge won't, and hell, there aren't many of those left in the game so why would you make it easier on yourself? Sure some people would, but a lot wouldn't as well. And the answer to your "air spikers" comment is simple. BOTH sides would have 20 air elementalists spiking damage. What then? Eventually they'd have to start fighting eachother, air spiker against air spiker because if they didn't, the opposing air spikers would do too much damage.
|
PieXags
You're not really making a point there, buddy. Just asking questions. Why does it matter what I think? I think strategy is whatever plan will help your team to victory. But there is NO way what is or isn't strategic or intelligent in such a battle because every player is a factor.
Before I go on, what the hell are you even arguing anymore? If you've never been in such a battle you'll never understand the means of fighting in such a battle anyway.
You're simplifying it too much. It isn't just "who shoots first wins". Are you even thinking before you ask such questions? You'll have to call targets, organize the time to attack in order to kill the target quickly, etc. Why am I explaining to you the basic concepts of battle? If you're still questioning what's strategy and what's not maybe you need to go experience it a little more.
I can't just say "yeah that's strategy", because every character will affect just what's smart and what isn't. Say if the other team had a team of mesmers you sure as HELL better not be the first ones to attack, you'll all die by the backfires.
You cannot, by any means, predict what will happen in the midst of battle. And until you understand the amount of adaptation and fighting it takes to win such a battle there's no point in arguing it.
Before I go on, what the hell are you even arguing anymore? If you've never been in such a battle you'll never understand the means of fighting in such a battle anyway.
You're simplifying it too much. It isn't just "who shoots first wins". Are you even thinking before you ask such questions? You'll have to call targets, organize the time to attack in order to kill the target quickly, etc. Why am I explaining to you the basic concepts of battle? If you're still questioning what's strategy and what's not maybe you need to go experience it a little more.
I can't just say "yeah that's strategy", because every character will affect just what's smart and what isn't. Say if the other team had a team of mesmers you sure as HELL better not be the first ones to attack, you'll all die by the backfires.
You cannot, by any means, predict what will happen in the midst of battle. And until you understand the amount of adaptation and fighting it takes to win such a battle there's no point in arguing it.
Etaisella
Plz don't try to make GW into WoW.
Open PVP causes so many problems, I'm not even going to list em out.
GW has the best PVP system out of any MMORPG I have ever played.
not signed/
Open PVP causes so many problems, I'm not even going to list em out.
GW has the best PVP system out of any MMORPG I have ever played.
not signed/
PieXags
*sigh* I guess I'm just tired of the little tiny arena skirmishes for PvP, I need something more involved. I need to go create a game with that style of PvP, since every other game with the idea has so many serious flaws it's unbelievable.
I need a drink.
I need a drink.
Numa Pompilius
I think perhaps it's time to point out the difference between strategy and tactics. Planning beforehand - selecting skills, designating caller, agreeing on a tactic - is strategy. The actual formations and moves pulled out on the battlefield is tactics.
Strategy is presently emphasized, so much so the battles are basically won or lost before they're even played. There is very little room for winning battles through tactical skill.
Strategy is what would become harder in 32-player battles, because the number of variables increase so much - like playing chess on a 3D board. However, tactics then become more important.
In someting like counterstrike, or a 32-player battle, tactics is more important than strategy. For some of us, that's not a bad thing.
Strategy is presently emphasized, so much so the battles are basically won or lost before they're even played. There is very little room for winning battles through tactical skill.
Strategy is what would become harder in 32-player battles, because the number of variables increase so much - like playing chess on a 3D board. However, tactics then become more important.
In someting like counterstrike, or a 32-player battle, tactics is more important than strategy. For some of us, that's not a bad thing.
DrSLUGFly
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Talesin Darkbriar
anytime I saw someone 5+ levels above the other players in the zone killing them, I made this fellow my personal project until he understood the error of his ways.
Talesin |
Great suggestion, and stumpy's thoughts on Mission ransom is valid too. No PvP in missions. I do think though that part of what makes this game run so smoothly is the private instances, although I would far prefer the WoW system of PvE and PvP.
Numa Pompilius
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DrSLUGFly
I seldom read one of your posts without coming away with the impression that you rock!
|
PieXags
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius
I think perhaps it's time to point out the difference between strategy and tactics. Planning beforehand - selecting skills, designating caller, agreeing on a tactic - is strategy. The actual formations and moves pulled out on the battlefield is tactics.
Strategy is presently emphasized, so much so the battles are basically won or lost before they're even played. There is very little room for winning battles through tactical skill. Strategy is what would become harder in 32-player battles, because the number of variables increase so much - like playing chess on a 3D board. However, tactics then become more important. In someting like counterstrike, or a 32-player battle, tactics is more important than strategy. For some of us, that's not a bad thing. |
Gardavil
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dumachum
Spoken like a true PK.
Whether you like it or not griefers, most likely you included, WILL abuse it to the maximum of their ability. This is the same argument PK's have been giving for "free pvp" on every online game that has ever come out. It is nothing new. |
Gardavil
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PieXags
I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY...
want some new form of PvP. ..... |
Try EVE Online, 0.4 and below security status star systems.
Just a suggestion....I would be doing a fellow gamer a disservice by NOT suggesting it.
slasc
I like the idea of PvP in a more anarchy style fashion.
However, I will easily admit that many people don't.
Go play shadowbane for 5 minutes (after leaving the noob isle) and you'll see how out of hand it can be. High levels willsit around and gank low levels for lack of anything better to do.
How about specialized PvP districts in these towns? Or maybe PvE zones that function like town districts and have PvP? Set them up to work like the normal towns/outposts do now, but allow PvP and party grouping. Put a handful of cool incentives to be there (maybe a specilailized weapons upgrade merchant or something) and it will be incentive for mostly high levels to be there. Surely the idea of a less organized PvP area is not bad. This game does come across way too carebear in that sense. This way, you would still have a choice over the matter, but the more daring of us could go and fight randomly, too. That would be sweet.
However, I will easily admit that many people don't.
Go play shadowbane for 5 minutes (after leaving the noob isle) and you'll see how out of hand it can be. High levels willsit around and gank low levels for lack of anything better to do.
How about specialized PvP districts in these towns? Or maybe PvE zones that function like town districts and have PvP? Set them up to work like the normal towns/outposts do now, but allow PvP and party grouping. Put a handful of cool incentives to be there (maybe a specilailized weapons upgrade merchant or something) and it will be incentive for mostly high levels to be there. Surely the idea of a less organized PvP area is not bad. This game does come across way too carebear in that sense. This way, you would still have a choice over the matter, but the more daring of us could go and fight randomly, too. That would be sweet.
slasc
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jadrius Lifebane
Manadar: Not a bad suggestion. However, you'd also want to make sure that you did not get exp for killing in a PvP district.
Otherwise: Level 20 in Ascalon City PvP district takes off his armor and tells people in his guild to take their new characters and come kill him over and over again to gain EXP and gain levels very rapidly. It'd be very exploitable, in that regard. So, the only safe way to do it, would be to make the 'in-city' PvP operate in a district, and offer no benefit. However, this would not solve Talesin's problem, since he was dealing with verbal grief. The verbal griefer probably would not be willing to go into the pvp district, nor could Talesin force him to. So, there would be nothing gained at all from this. A duel system could be rather cool, though, just for the sake of practicing. Especially if parties of equal size could duel. |
I will agree here. No XP for random PvP. Only XP for random team vs. random team organized fighting like what exists now (or tournament, etc....you know what I mean).
PieXags
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gardavil
you want almost unrestricted PvP?
Try EVE Online, 0.4 and below security status star systems. Just a suggestion....I would be doing a fellow gamer a disservice by NOT suggesting it. |
The thing I think would be great about GW having the style is simply...almost everyone has a lvl 20 character, there wouldn't be any spawn camping by high lvls because everyone is at a high lvl. Just a lot of even lvl people fighting like hell.
