f13.net

Find the whole FAQ here. (http://everquest2.station.sony.com/expansions/kingdomofsky/faq.vm)

EQ2 PVP Details (http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/news_ff.vm?FeatureName=pvp_combat&section=development)

Here's a quick rundown of how this affects alignments:

They should have allowed cross faction chat channels.  Opt-in for abuse and all that.

Nah, then you get the whole spy/traitor thing.  No tells, no chat, no shout, no ooc, no communication at all to the other team is draconic but probably for the best.

At least make the bastards relog a different character or run the expense of having a two box with one good one evil if they want to give warnings to thier buddies.

Oh good, is this where we have a long pointless argument about metagaming?

I like how a tank's hate generation will force them to be targeted and that skills to reduce hate will make you untargetable.  I usually play a healer and the few times I tried PvP resulted in me getting targeted first and annihilated in under three seconds.

I like that cross faction interaction is limited like in WoW too.  Grays not being attackable is also good.

I still won't go near it with a ten foot pole.

Or the easier way: friends on the enemy side and IRC. That's what folks used to do all the time in DAoC.

I tend to think daoc had it right when it comes to RvR.

Complete separation, no communication through any channel, no trading, no cross-guilding, no having alts in opposing realms, not even using enemy character names in the main view.

This seems to suggest you can still communicate in local chat. If they must do that, at least require a long and boring language quest first. It also suggests you can have cross-realm alts. bah.

Current servers are supposed to have competitive realm v realm pve, but it breaks down if you allow a community to form across the realm boundaries, the community always starts asking for the remaining barriers to be broken down.

Much like IRL for that matter.

Players from opposing Daoc realms properly disliked each other. Complete segregation was the reason.

What... the... fuck?

Way to not learn the mistakes of the past, pigfuckers.

Is there any more PvP information available beyond that FAQ?  I found it pretty sketchy.

Too many problems to even consider. 

Emotes with voiceovers: enjoy being spammed.
Multiple zone boundaries
Pervasive stuns on many classes
Game playable in windowed mode (generation of player-created lag beneficial to ranged classes)
Easy faction swapping with good/evil toons available to players on a given server
Exp debt
Multiple class balance issues
...

The list seems quite long.  I'd like to see how they are planning to address even a portion of these issues.
 

Currently in EQ2 the debt incurred for death is less than trivial.  Having to incur a less than a less than trivial amount of debt is less than nothing.  I don't see how it could be less.  If you get killed while on the agro list of a mob, /shrug who cares the debt is less than trivial. 

It may be trivial, but it's still a penalty. And stupid, even more stupid if the amount of debt is so trivial as to be beneath notice. There's just no reason to make an integral part of the ruleset a punishment.

I'm not sure why the big focus on this. In Everquest, "the zeks" were so trivially unimportant. This shouldn't be any different. The ruleset has some gaping holes, but I think that is a given. The Everquest model just doesn't work with PvP in a widely enjoyable way.

You should play a game like Snakes and Ladders, sometimes you land on the snake tail and your progress is penalized, truly it is a common element in most games I know.   :roll:

I'll see if I can present this properly: 

In PvE the player selects the difficulty of the encounter.  Failing the encounter results in a small penalty.  This is reasonable in a risk/reward sort of way as long as the punishment isn't so harsh to discourage risk taking.

In PvP the player often has no control over the encounter.  They are thrust into it.  Often this encounter represents an unwinnable scenario.  It's enough to be beaten into the ground by superior foes and/or superior numbers.  What purpose does taking a death penalty on the end serve?  It adds nothing to the risk/reward picture. 

That's how I see it anyway.

Bad Nebu.  It's cheating to post the end of the debate a few posts after it starts.  We're suppose to wail and nash our teeth for 7 pages while rehashing this subject for the nth time.

In PvP, "being thrust into the encounter" is the best part.  Considering that you can't pvp targets that are grey to you covers that to a certain extent and regarding numbers, that is a good method in my books to throw the gauntlet down to challenge the other side. 

If that is the end of the debate, I am glad we skipped over the lengthy middle part.  Really its kind of weak and lacks any idea of what PvP is about.  Not having control of your encounters is what PvP is about.  Not always doing something you can be successful at is PvP.  So what if death has some kind of penalty, if I am willing to meet it I would consider it your loss that you felt the need to turn away. 

This thread needs more boobs and muffins plz.

Why do we need to add another penalty on top of the loss in PvP.  You've been beaten and sent back to your bind point.  You lost the encounter with another human.  You see, on a PvP server THAT's the penalty.  The fact that another player just beat you.  What purpose does tacking on a death penalty serve? 

To add to the end of the debate:

PVP is an activity most people DO NOT want to engage in, especially when it is not at a time and place of their choosing. In a PVE focused game such as EQ2, where all that really matters is the shinies and how fast you get them, doing anything that slows down that particular treadmill is going to discourage people who might otherwise want to engage in the activity. Even if the penalty is trivial, it WILL be a reason some (many) people do not wish to participate in PVP, meaning the server will be much less populated than it might otherwise be. Anything that discourages people from wanting to participate in the main activity of the server ruleset (on a PVP server, that's PVP) is a bad thing.

Belce, you and I both know from old experience that there are some people who will not participate in PVP unless there is absolutely no penalty whatsoever. We aren't those people, because we used to be the first in line to do guild wars back on Karana in EQ. But we also had a giagantic guild full of people who refused to join in the guild wars (wars fought with our guild's friends) simply because of the slimmest possibility they might lose experience on a death, even though we all tried not to use things we knew would cause XP Loss. You and I could care less as long as the fight is fun, but that is not the attitude of most people, especially most people playing a PVE-focused MMOG.

I thought I could find some muffins that looked like boobies, just to be funny... sort of like that boobie cake I posted a while ago.  Soooo... I googled boob muffins.   :cry:

What is pvp in an mmog about? Let's see:

Having the highest level.  
Having the best gear.
Playing the least balanced class.
Understanding the use of lag to your advantage to generate range and LoS errors.
and probably far down the list... being the most skilled.  

I've been playing pvp games online since they were in text.  What makes pvp fun is that you're facing an opponent that offers a more diverse interaction than an npc.   The loss is the penalty.  Especially when you've been beaten by someone on an equal footing.  I just don't see what purpose exp debt serves to make the pvp experience "more fun".  If you can explain that to me (us) then yes, the debate would be over.

The concept of a penalty in PvP is reasonable, because otherwise you're just standing at arms length slapping one another like those guys in the New Order video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8949769297232880418&q=new+order). It's not really appropraite for PvP to penalise the PvE game because different players associate different values to the PvP and PvE experience. Since you cannot gain experience and levels from PvP, you should not lose experience and levels in it either. An appropriate form of penalty would be the loss of ability to participate in that PvP for a while - ressurected back at your home town, or having a temporary action penalty in PvP combat.

(Edit: linky)

I guess we will rehash for the nth time, LOL. 
It's a like bad song that gets stuck in your head.

Hey, can we cover PK vs PvP also, that's a golden oldie too!

PVP advocates are no good, pitiful misfits. All they want to do is grief other people and cause as much unhappiness in their foes as possible. This helps to give structure and meaning to an otherwise feeble and ineffectual life...and so on.

They dine on hot pockets, keep a cooler full of mountain dew near the pc, and they always make sure to keep a steady supply of poopsocks available.

Their account is paid from mom's credit card.

No matter what disincentive is put in place, they will seek out the weak and least sporting conflicts in PvP. Any griefable situation (permanent stun lock, maximum exp loss by victim, corpse camping, obscene taunting, etc.) will be gleefully pursued, even if there is no in game reward. The only defense is call in powerful friends of one's own to end the griefing and give some back. Thus, the cycle of violence continues.

It is a cycle run on the tears of the righteous, the anger of the jaded, and the joy of the griefer.

How was that?

Bite the dust lika a man and stop whining u nub killa. Ur a cowardly carebear and u prolly still piss ur bed. we will pwn u and ur pals while u sing kumbuyah cuz we can and its fun. kkthxbye

f13.net - fucking the n00b right out of y00

I miss thejeni.

Your husband has a 5th degree belt in google-fu.  I imagine he can help you.

(http://kelseyrox04.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/moiiiiiiiiiiiii.jpg.w300h225.jpg)



edit. Added a pic from the google search.

I bet you were trying to hotlink that image of Moira before Tripod pwn'd you.

Forgot tripod would pwn me.  Shoulda used a cached image but I do not have the wherewithal to fix it.

XP debt is there because XP gain is as well. That's fine, and will result in predictably underpopulated PvP servers.

But Grey or not, Levels are a part of the formula. I imagine it's the Soft Cap thing we've all come to know and love. I'll wager it's level 45 or 50, since the new Achievements system (sort of extended-AAXP) begins at 20. People will treat it like SB or WoW: grind on PvE until they're at the soft cap.

It doesn't help that PvP has no real point to it. either Oh, I'm sure they're thinking that the point is to keep the opposing side from leveling up, allowing the winning side more command of the resources, to level up guilds and whatnot. But XP debt in PvP sucks enough that people will assiduously avoid the chance of loss by avoiding PvP altogether. Then when they hit the soft cap and don't need any more levels, XP debt becomes irrelevant, removing this single "point" of PvP anyway.

In my opinion. There's no point to XP debt because there's no point to XP gain.

PVP completely breaks the holy "risk versus reward" mechanic used to balance these games. So much of what happens in PVP is not controllable. Risk is constant and very difficult to mitigate without leaning on powerful friends.

It's also very exploitable. PVP is just a darn tough nut to crack, so I stay away. To each his own, for sure though.

Well there is certainly an conservative ideal concerning pvp on this forum.  Its bad, its wrong, its the anti-christ.  I have played pvp in EQ as warrior, Ao, DAoC, SWG and have never encountered a really bad pvp experience.  I am sorry if you all have had a universial bad experience with pvp, but outside of what that experience offers I haven't seen any.  Your experience is counter to my experience in this field and therefore I disregard it.

Besides I am afraid of pvp, none of you have yet offered a valid reason why pvp is poor play. 

And to the person that suggested that this forum was fuckin the noob out, I suggest you drop your jar of mayo and hero sandwich loaf and play some pvp, that you all do and realize that its the best thing that happened to roleplay in this genre.

I suggest you hit shift.  And this is a post, not forum.  Sheesh.  It takes ME to correct you?  Can people please den this post and the one I am quoting?

What did I say about conservative anti pvp ideal of this forum?

You can do what ever with my posts, I care not. 

I mean certainly you can use any language here, express any view that agrees with the general board here, but no disagreement?  Someone can suggest that this forum is fucking the noob out of me, but I can't agrue pvp is more than you understand it to be?  Fine, 'den it'

Please put my views that you do not share somewhere else.  I don't think you are ready for them yet.

I am so confused,

You've run this sub-forum into the ground Cheddar...

*shakes fist*

Wait 'till Shockeye finds this!  Oh wait, its EQ2 who gives a fuck?   :-P

So confused?

You suggested that my post be removed.  I thought I defended based on what it was about originally. And you are confused Cheddar. Hello?

Hey I read your post concerning your guild move and PvP, I think your suggestion that it would mean guild members playing solo or opting for certain classes as being unrealistic.  It shows a complete lack of understanding of the current situation in PvP and what happens.  While you may move to a non pvp server you should give it a try now and see your errors first hand.

I'm confused now, too.

Me three. I think part of the problem is that most of us are too lazy to keep rehashing the same anti RPG PvP arguments over and over again so Belce's thinks we're just a bunch of RPG PvP n00bs or something.

I think his first language is fucklish. Something's getting lost in translation.

There's no reason to tailspin into he-said/he-said.

Belce, I can't speak for others, but I can say for myself I was confused by your post, so hope you can clarify. I'll break it down by paragraph:
If I understand correctly, you have played PvP quite a bit, and enjoy it. Your experiences differ from others. The one thing you shouldn't do (again, if I understand you right) is disregard the bad experiences people have had.

Here is confusion #1: Your first paragraph extolls your enjoyment of PvP, and then you say you're afraid of it?

There's zillions of posts on a per-game basis about the highlights and downfall of PvP. My own personal opinion is that games in which PvP relies on statistics gives a clear advantage to people who play much more often than others. This presents a very unlevel playing field. This isn't bad for the people who can play at that level, but it's alienating to those who cannot.

Confusion #2: Are you calling people out here? If so, please note that how you play PvP and have become good at it is a good example of my own opinion. You play differently than some here do. It's an unlevel playing field by that virtue alone. But as you know, this is specific to game. You could crush folks in DAoC yet get crushed in Planetside or Quake 4. Mastering PvP in one game is not the same as another. There's some commonalities with statistics-based games (because if you have the time to master one, chances are you have the time to master another), but this doesn't transcend entire genres because how mastery achieved is unique to each.

I'm pro-pvp. Just not in a game that's built around power imbalances via a power-differential levelling advancement system with a layer of power-differential item acquisition. Even playing field, Planetside, BF1942, whatever. I love pvp.

About BC's server move: how is that in any way any of your business? Are you in the guild? As for the reason why it's a bad idea, I could mention the Zeks again. You can forget about even more content because it's camped by big pvp guilds, which we would never be. Differential pvp is fine for exactly two kinds of player: the opportunist griefer and the power guild. Everyone else is fodder. That's why people have a negative feel for it.

If you just want to disregard what all the pvp veterans here have to say, why don't you just move along, now? At the least, stop being an asshole until you've been around a bit longer.

In the EQ2 forum, a game built around and catering to PVP, maybe. In the f13 forums, not so much. Most of us, me included, just want there to be some equitable rules in PVP. Fair play and such.

Most of which are impossible with EQ's ruleset because of level differentials and the general asstardery of most of the Zek server populations.

I played 2+ years on the Vallon Zek in EQ1.  I played Shadowbane, I played DAOC, I played UO back in the unrestricted PVP days, I am playing EVE which has lots of PVP, blah, blah, blah, etc... I have no desire to play unrestricted pvp in EQ2.

Just not the right game for it.  It's not going to be a top priority for the devs OR the community.  I'll pvp in a game thats meant for pvp and pve in a game thats meant for pve (which, without a doubt, is what eq2 is)

I played on a pvp server in WoW for a short time. Here I am, a level 18 rogue, hunting spiders or something for a quest. Suddenly, I get ganked by level 60 paladin. He gets no reward, but he's decided to prowl around and gank newbs.

This is the Battlefield 2 equivalent of someone on a server having an invincibility cheat. How long are you going to play on that server? You'll leave..Let's say you go to another server (...zone) and there are now several guys with the invincibility cheat that you can't kill. What if every server you want to play on has these guys? How long are you going to play that game?

Freaking damn it. I got sucked into another stupid PVP debate. Die in a poopsock fire, Belce.

So.

I was planning to get the next expansion to try EQ2 for the first time, taking the occasion to go directly on the PvP servers. But the more I read about the ruleset (now updated with some interesting notes) the more I started to doubt about it.

Could I flood the thread by cut/pasting my opinions? Or post a link? ;p

There's a lot I find worth discussing and I'm actually surprised that the plan was overall well-received by the players.

Doubts about the upcoming PVP system. (http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/node/1148)

Go for it.  There are a few people who might be interested in PvP in EQ .... SUCKERS!

ahhkay.

I don't want to show my leet blog skills. I just would like to see some of these parts discussed. I always felt passionate about PvP in games and this goes beyond just EQ2.

I'll copy/paste "as is".

--
I'm trying to like it but I really cannot digest it all that much.

EverQuest 2 progressively released more and more details about its upcoming (with the expansion) PvP ruleset and it seems to have met the consensus of the majority of the players. Not mine, though.

The full explanations can be found here (http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/news_ff.vm?FeatureName=pvp_combat&section=development) (nothing new. This is at least one week old).

There are some design choices that I don't see as interesting nor fun and I believe will turn into experiments gone wrong, in the same way pretty much everything they tried that wasn't directly derived from WoW (see my "Patterns of EverQuest2" (http://www.corpnews.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=65811#65811) that were at the origin of the lenghty articles below).

Between the sympathizers there's also Cosmik (http://n3rfed.blogs.com/n3rfed/2006/01/eqii_pvp_ganked.html). So I'll back up some of his comments at times.

The first note that I have to make, though, is that for the most part this PvP system is a carbon-copy of the (terrible) one used in WoW. Now we'll have to see if the history repeats and if those few things that EQ2 is trying to do differently will reveal to be so bad that everything will be ultimately patched back to a proper WoW clone in all the tiniest details. The King of Game Design that SOE secretly seems to worship.

The guidelines are the same as WoW, as I already "ranted" about (http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/node/1047). There are two factions, one is evil, the other good, both share the same classes, there's a distinction between honorable and dishonorable kills and if you farm enough points you can build up faction and have access to fat loot. Now let's delve more into the details.

Communication and Interaction

All the first part explains how the comminication between the two factions is regulated. And it goes really in the detail explaining everything you CAN'T do. Even if it would have been so much simpler to explain what you CAN do. Which is: you are free to whack those in the other faction and use emotes. That's all.

On this level the whole system is clearly copied from WoW till the minimum detail. There isn't even a minimal difference whatsoever. Let's hope that at least they didn't copy even the exploits (like leet speak) that were only patched later in WoW. Maybe they went in lazy mode and just blocked directly the messages instead of adding filters, who knows. I also wonder if they'll go with DAoC model and use only generic overhead names or they'll go with WoW's model and still display the full name on the enemy characters. Oh yes. Rhetorical question, I guess :)

There's one trait I find extremely interesting, though. But I'll come on this later. (see the P.S. at the end)

Combat Mechanics

The next part explains how the combat will behave differently from PvE to PvP. They have basically set them as two separate systems where one spell can be adjusted in PvP without affecting PvE, so making the balancing process less problematic and less prone to screw ups.

From the development side this is a solid practice and one that other games have already used in a way or another. It is good that EQ2 was planned from the ground up with this mindset, so I have nothing to criticize.

Instead from the player's side this could be problematic. I'm wondering how they'll keep the UI clean and still show how the skills and spells behave in the two different situations. I also believe that the variance will make the game feel less consistent and understandable. Which would require probably too much research to understand all the quirks and use your character at best. So it's good from a game-y point of view, but less in an attempt to create a world with its own rules and consistency. I can understand the choice, though.

And now we arrive at the problems: Taunts and Hate Reduction.

Cosmik is glad, along with many other players positively surprised, to finally see aggro managment skills finally working in PvP. Yes, they'll add more tactics into the fight but I really believe this is a bad decision that will make the combat terribly unfun.

The experience in DAoC already taught (to noone, since no game actually addressed this problem) how gameplay-disrupting skills make the combat frustrating. The frustration comes directly from the loss of control. A combat system (no matter if it's twitch or turn-based) is fun the more you have an active control on it. If you can take decisions and affect how things are going. By definition an attack must imply a defence. Losing control of your character without any possibility to do anything else than stare at the screen feels like being kick-slapped around a room without the possibility to react. It zones you out. It feels passive.

I already examinated at depth (http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/node/1016) (from my point of view) these mechanics and I believe that this sort of frustration is valuable in the game only if it can also find an "exit point". A "vent valve". But instead in these combat mechanics the "loss of control" is not a pattern of counterattack. It is instead a pattern of death. When you are losing control you are also going to die.

All these comments come from my direct experience and I know what frustrates me in a PvP combat and I perceive as "unfun". What I hate the most in WoW's combat mechanics, for example, is that I pass the majority of the time trying to fight against the controls and gameplay-disrupting situations. I'm constantly feared, Mind Controlled, slowed down or chain-stunned. These interruptions disrupt the gameplay. While I hate being feared, the most frustrating thing is that you also lose your target. Here you are fighting with the interface, which is the most annoying thing in a game: having to re-issue the same commands repeatedly.

This continue loss of control is not fun. It gets in the way of playing the game. So why creating two separate systems for PvP and PvE if this possibility isn't used to support the fun in the game? Again it's not a case that the most fun mechanics are those reactive (see again Mount and Blade (http://taleworlds.net/)) instead of those gameplay-disruptive. So I don't see the innovative implementation of taunts and aggro management in PvP as something that will contribute in a positive way.

The same I could say for the "Control Spells". This isn't a new problem for the genre and I already explained what I think about it and how I'd try to solve it (same link as above). EQ2's model isn't anything new, regulated through immunity timers (as DAoC). In this case probably a better choice than the one used in WoW (through diminished returns). While the latter is more consistent, it is also less fun for the reasons listed above.

So I do not like how EQ2 is going to address this problem, but it's also in line with what all the other games are doing.

About the behaviour of stealth I won't comment much because it depends a lot on the implemention than general design. I just hope that they copy WoW, in this case, and not DAoC. Hiding the overhead names while stealthed. That's pretty much all I ask. It would be also interesting to have a variable visibilty based on range or skill/level check instead of just a visible/invisible boolean status. Another detail that I find important is that WoW uses sounds to help you detect hidden targets (both friendly or not). That's another very good idea.

Death System

This is crucial in every PvP implementation and the one that made WoW's PvP so popular and successful. Here I agree with Cosmik. This choice to add an exp debt on a PvP death is plain bad. I just don't see any good coming out of this. There is no advantage whatsoever and on top of this there's even the incentive to grief by attacking a player when he is engaged in combat to make him suffer the full exp debt (and loss of money).

I also agree with Cosmik on the doubts on the honorable/dishonorable system. It is something that never worked in WoW. I don't even think it's possible to make it work without adding a further layer of complexity that wouldn't add anything worthwhile to the game. Here the solution is rather simple and the one WoW implemented before kicking everything to hell whith the launch of the honor system. More feedback on this here (http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/node/452).

Here SOE is trying to outsmart Blizzard by implementing a system that faied in WoW and was discared among the complaints of the players pointing at the page of the manual where it was described. I think this new solution will be also short-legged since it doesn't really address the *origin* of the problem. No useful solution can be found if this part is examined superficially as it currently is.

Forcing the players to check the exact percents of health on a target before attacking to avoid to incur in a penalty is bad. Very, very bad. Broken design on multiple levels (even if the actual threshold to matter is the one at 20% with the latest revised mechanics). I also do not understand the "Kill List" used to address the problem of repeated kills. This is another system that failed in WoW and an occasion for EQ2 to do better, but its solution convinces me even less. This is another core mechanic of every PvP implementation. My suggested solutions and further thoughts are here (http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/node/99) (adding "bounty points" and incentives to survive instead of penalties).

There's also a possibility that you drop some junk in a PvP death. I don't think this idea will add anything worthwhile. Fluff. Instead dropping gold will be annoying and adds to the death penalty. Again a bad move.

I note that at the higher levels there isn't any penalty or discouragement for ganking. This while the victim will still receive the exp debt and drop gold that will be looted by the happy ganker. The ganker is allowed to farm lower level players and loot their gold without any penalty.

At the lower levels, instead, ganking will be forbidden, since you won't be able to initiate the combat with a character 8 levels below you. Cosmik commented about this and I agree with him. This pretty much erases all the qualities of an open PvP system. WoW outsmarted pretty much everyone on this aspect with the idea of "friendly" and "contested" zones. It wins hands down and the evidence of this will show.

All these points stacks up to form a death system that doesn't look nowhere fun nor solid or even accessible. While encouraging the griefing and cheap ganking mechanics. Pretty much the opposite of the results it should try to achieve.

--
No mentions about the PvP rewards and factional gains, so it's hard to figure out the impact of this system. I only know that doing worse than WoW is pretty much impossible in this case (yeah, Honor System).

So, I expected to write a few terse notes and instead I got this. I have many gripes about the death system and the combat mechanics and I expect that this PvP ruleset won't be popular. I wouldn't be surprised if SOE pushes this back in the list of priorities after it is launched.

Pretty much the same destiny of EverQuest 1.

P.S.
At one point I wrote that there was an interesting trait but then I forgot to write about it. I don't know if I'm correct but there's a part where they hint there aren't just two alignments possible, but three (good, evil, betraying). They don't explain this part but it may have lots of potential. One of my ideas on the "dream mmorpg" (also tied to the "permeable barriers" concept) was about letting the players betray (http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/node/101) the original two hardcoded factions to create new ones, with the possibility also to switch from good to evil and vice versa. I'm curious to see what will happen in EQ2 from this perspective.

I can't believe I missed this thread earlier.  Thanks for the morning chuckle whomever bumped this first.  (Oh it was Hrose)

When the rules first were posted, the things I thought they'd eventually be dropping before this went live were XP loss on death and the chance to lose an item. Both of those are bad ideas long since proven as such within games that are all about XP gain and a chance to gain an item!. This is a PvE game. It will always be a PvE game. A tenet of PvE games is character growth and item gain. And being PvE, mobs are both stupid and, eventually, predictable such that gaining XP and items can become more efficient.

PvP flies in the face of all of that. You can control, for the most part, death in PvE. The "sting" of XP debt is penalty enough, but it's mostly either for technical stuff outside of someone's control (lag, crashes, etc.) or because someone made a mistake. PvP is all death outside of someone's control because "control" in a PvP system is about stats and skill. The former is unequal across all players the minute PvP goes live.

So I am firmly convinced that the idea of XP debt/loss and item loss on death are both going to be removed, either before this goes live or at some time shortly thereafter.

As to everything else, it really looks like they're trying to mirror WoW for players not yet burned by WoW, yet also create a recognizable environment for may account for a significant portion of their growth: players tired of WoW.

I've played PvP games almost exclusively for the last 10 years.  PvP muds, UO, PvP servers on mmogs, daoc, etc.  My conclusion is the same that I'm reading here, namely:

EQ2 is not meant to be played as a PvP game.  The core mechanics of EQ2 will doom it to be a miserable failure in its attempt to offer a PvP game. Instead EQ2 will have 2 new servers filled with idiots that think it is a pvp game just as was the case in EQ1.  If that takes these people out of the other games that I enjoy, then I will happily endorse EQ2 pvp. 

While I agree in broadstrokes, I can't really condemn other people's idea of fun. I will bet, as I have previously, that the PvP servers for EQ2 will be as underpopulated as the Zeks were in EQ1. I do see how their system can be easily scaled (like, they flip a switch and suddenly all root-based spells have a much higher chance of breaking), but the functional nature of PvP in a diku-experience alienates people not at the endgame.

It works ok in WoW (regardless of the criticisms, yes, there are droves having fun in it) partly because hitting that endgame is not an arduous struggle for the very same sort of people most attracted to RPG-based PvP in the first place. Of course, it also works because every single other Blizzard game integrates PvP regardless of genre. Fighting others is fighting others. The folks who followed this latest Blizzard product are just doing so with new tools to learn.

"Everquest" is not synonymous with direct PvP (it's most the indirect "iPvP" that was part of their core message in the early days of EQ2)

No. It works in WoW because it uses different rules.

Not because EverQuest 2 players are of another breed than Blizzard players. That's just stupid, Darniaq.

Even on PvP servers, WoW PvP is all about BG faction grind and the occassional raid on Southshore/Crossroads.  Open field PvP doesn't carry the rewards for the masses to be interested.  When I played on a PvP server I had a few PvP encounters from 20-25 then virtually nothing up to 45 when I quit. 

EQ2 at least seems like open field will be the dominant form of PvP - which is interesting, but not interesting overcome my agreement with Nebu's comment above.

I had PLENTY of PvP action before they introduced the honor system.

I've already examined all these situations at length and I'd gladly do that again, but it seems there aren't people willingly to discuss all that.

Open field PvP, to work and remain fun when is paralleled with PvE just CANNOT have rewards attached to it. This is why WoW's PvP was so much enriching before they ruined it with the honor system.

This doesn't mean that I believe that PvP should have no rewards. But it should have PvP rewards (skills, powers or loot, it's not so important) tied with PURPOSES.

The scheme should be like this:
- Open PvP without restriction outside the newbie areas (WoW's distinction between "friendly" and "contested" is good).
- No penalty for the victim. No xp debt, nor any other kind of penalty for who is killed. The small timesink is enough.
- No reward for the attacker. The PvP should retain a roleplay value. Meaning that the "free ganking" shouldn't be punished nor rewarded. Attacking another character should be remain asn open choice and the game shouldn't artificially push a decision on you.
- Special PvP goals (towns, towers, hot spots that the players can battle over) in BOTH dedicated areas and normal PvE areas.
- Points awarded EXCLUSIVELY by conquering and holding these "hotspots" and not for the direct kills.

This is the perfect model for a game where PvE and PvP have to coexist.

The PvP goals/hotspots would attract most of the PvP action, still blending uniformly with the non-instanced game world. This would bring to life the environment and the various zones, while still remaining accessible and fun for the new players.

That is a "soul-less" appraisal of WoW in this context  :wink:  Really - I hate pvp generally - but in WoW I enjoy it. It feels so thematic.  I got tired of warsong gulch - but I loved the other one (man its been awhile) - ZG?  I felt like I was fighting in a dynamic world - with objectives that were strategic rather than kill farming (warsong). 

Hehe. I didn't want to derail too much, but your question and Hrose's selective forgetfulness of 15 months of conversations prompt me to clarify. This isn't to say I'm right or anything. It's just the details behind my statement.

Way to miss the point. 

I'm not talking about "breed", I'm talking about culture. The difference isn't in the person. It's in what they expect. Fact is, a good chunk of WoW players are MMORPG veterans. I've said that since before the beginning, as a testament to what Blizzard achieved: a game that's actually fun for a lot of fucking people.

On point: WoW came with PvP. It could do so because people expected it. Blizzard makes PvP games. Blizzard makes an MMORPG. Blizzard's MMORPG features PvP. Big surprise.

Immediately, the culture is openly integrating PvP. Half the servers are full PvP in a genre where no other comparable title has that many PvP servers. Shit, even your beloved DAoC wasn't as freeform about PvP as WoW. It's easy for the players to integrate PvP because the rules, even at launch, weren't a complete failure (as evidenced by there not being a mass migration away from the PvP servers).

Is that a phenomena because the maybe-1mil MMORPG players at the time suddenly lost their collective memories of Noto PK days, Zek servers, and Buffbots?

No. For how long was "open PvP" actually a form of profanity in this genre? For how long did people want even more contrived rulesets to protect themselves from others? In fact, I'd love to see a breakdown, which of course is impossible to build, of what type of player went to what type of server. Would be interesting to see how many experienced vets went to PvP servers for example. I don't care about anecdotes though. They'll be wrong.

Now, on the other side, Everquest 2 comes along with an established message about there being no PvP. This was a message specifically for the genre veteran, for reasons stated above. It's one of many reasons I don't feel SOE was capable of delivering a truly casual (http://www.darniaq.com/phpNews/news.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=198) MMORPG. They were looking inward.

Meawhile, Blizzard was looking outward. As a result, their point of reference was other genres, which by the way, have as the biggest form of their repeat playability some form of interplayer competition. We call in "PvP" here. In RTS and FPS (and Diablo), it's just what happens.

Basically, WoW works because of the rules and because the culture accepted it before launch. As did Shadowbane. As did Eve. As did Planetside. As did any game that was specifically designed and developed and sold to player as a PvP game.

EQ2 is going to have a tougher time because it has been a dedicated PvE game since forever, with a culture now years old.

The rules of PvP matter of course. But the relevance of PvP requires a combination of game relevance (Rank gear for WoW, nothing overtly stated for EQ2) and cultural acceptance. Without some purpose to PvP in EQ2, I don't think they'll get that many people playing.

I'm glad you said "good chunk" instead of majority when you described the WoW players who are MMORPG veterans. Because you know, that many MMORPG veterans DIDN'T EXIST before WoW.  :-P

I want opinions.

What you would think of this idea, applied to either WoW or EQ2, it fits both:

- The contested zones have one conquerable "hotspot" each. The players can organize and go cap one, putting their guild flag on it. The hotspots don't have any NPCs defending them, just players. Once capped all the kills taking place in the proximity of the hotspot will be worth points. Encouraging the PvP action to move away from the PvE hubs (villages, towns, camp spots), so without disrupting the gameplay of those who don't want to bother.

This coordinated with what I wrote above. So no xp penalties, no looting, no incentives for the free kills whatsoever and completely open PvP in all the contested zones.

TELL ME why this wouldn't work or wouldn't be so much more fun than those PvP systems in EQ2 and WoW. Tell me.

Relevant PvP's always a good idea. Zones with hotspots would be contested zones non-interested-parties would ignore anyway. The "points" though could be interesting to fulfill Guild Level and general city prestige requirements. It's a good blend between core PvE rules and player-directed content.

In the broadest sense, I think it could work. Part of that is because it sounds similar to SB was set up in that a city allowed citizens to "own" the content around it. Lucrative placement meant good farming opportunities, and you fought for that over people who wanted it for themselves. Diplomacy ensued.

It also reminds me a bit of BGs on paper too. At it's heart, BGs are about hotspot capture and control for the necessary "currency" to increase the resources one's side has. "Points" are spent to upgrade gear into higher tiers while the losing side cannot.

Finally, it also reminds me a bit of AC2s system, where you captured resource nodes (in that case from NPCs), but once captured you only had to defend it from other players in other Kingdoms. The amount of such nodes was different between KvK servers and non, though they were there at all on both.

And I only mention the above references for inspiration, not to diminish your idea.

I'm posting on the fly. Here you vaguely hint that people wouldn't bother, even if you don't say this openly.

But they WOULD. As I said the kills are worth nothing if you are outside the radius of an hotspot. But these points are also DESIRABLE. Think to WoW:
- The Honor System is discarded
- No more points are awarded for a PvP kill, exactly as it happened before the Honor System was patched in
- The Honor System will be replaced with a new one where you can "spend" PvP points to buy: armor, weapons, crafting recipes, crafting resources, consumables, epic mounts, whatever. Get more PvP points = get more "currency" to buy this stuff. Pretty straightforward.


Yes, that's the point. That's also why I strongly agree with Haemish. The goal is to create a system that remains as open as it could be (and much more open than EQ2, since it's absolutely unrestricted) while still remain accessible for the players. Without becoming a pain or something aimed at hardcore players only.

Well, in this case the hotspots are completely static. This to "design" them to not overlap with the current PvE camping spots. So ready for an easy implementation without messing the whole game.

It's a BG without the suck. Without the instance, without people running out to reset it, without the horrible feeling of playing a stupid, faked deathmatch.

The value of the reward is linked to the combat system to get it. As such is a paradox:

The greater the value of a PvP reward, the more people will try to get it, the more that process will be dominated by those who achieve higher stats first, the more other people are cut out, the more likely those people cut out would end up going with PvE anyway.

That's a gross generalization, but any PvP built into EQ2 at this point would need to take the very different level spread into account. In WoW it's safer for this sort of thinking because so many people are 60. Not so in EQ2 (http://www.darniaq.com/phpNews/news.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=199). (it's also safer because Blizzard sees PvP very differently than SOE).

Not partaking of PvE in EQ2 is not leveling up. Not leveling up is not gaining abilities. Not gaining abilities is a disadvantage in PvP. If the rewards for PvP are that great, this disadvantage is even more pronounced.

So the result is needing a balance. Much like WoW. You can get better PvP gear in WoW faster if you're "good enough", but the more predictable, albeit more time-intensive, process is PvE. In separate zones.

And now I am sitting here not believing I've been up longer tonight than I would have had my EQ2 server been up :)

I'm against the specialization in PvP or PvE. Like it is happening in WoW.

I believe that a player should be able to get the most from each part and access both instead of specialize just in one. So the idea is just to offer two different paths, both viable and not exclusive.

The *current* system in WoW cuts out people because it is based on a selection. In my idea you gain the points and spend them directly. So you can grow at your own pace, without having to "race" and catass against everyone else.

This is easy to solve.

The zones are already grouped by level. So there should be an incentive to go fight in a zone of your appropriate level. The PvP points would be much more desirable if you kill players around your level instead of players much below you.

So this should encourage the players to group by zone. And as I said the PvE shouldn't be a problem at all. It wasn't a problem on WoW's PvP servers and will be even less in my idea since it would discourage even more the ganking.

Why would you go ganking in a lower level zone if you could go in one more appropriate and challenging (and fun) that would reward you directly with PvP points?

I too dream of a panacea where PvP and PvE are not independent. But to me, that requires a game not specifically focused on grind-based advancement. I thought that's where GW was going originally, but alas, not so much. And I do agree that pre-Honor Point WoW was sorta going that way, mostly because the lack of rules allowed players to arrive at the funnest one for all (with occasional missteps, but overall very indicative of how PvP could work).

Alas, nobody can keep themselves from tinkering until something's broken :)

The biggest problem with PvP points is what we're already seeing in WoW: people will grind them to get foozles. It changes the motivation to PvP. It should be something people feel rewarded by after having some PvP fun. But just like XP and item rewards, eventually PvP points become the main thing to get, and therefore something to make a more efficient process out of. It's a shame but it happens time and again.

The better the reward that can be purchased by points, the more focus players place on those points. Not ALL players, but it only takes a critical mass of them to focus on achievement exclusively to the point of excluding others.

Whether it's dedicated to zone by level or some other way, the result is the focus on point acquisition.

I'd rather move away from that and go somewhere different, like back to your original idea about controlling nodes to control PvE content in a zone. This could translate into more direct rewards of resources to be moved to crafters to be converted to better skill scrolls and equipment, allowing a measure of player-directed content. Sure this is griefable, but on a PvP server, it would at least make sense.

I know that the players will game the system, but why is this bad?

It will even help to keep PvP and PvE separated since the players are encouraged to move closer to the hotspots around their level.

PvP points and rewards should be a reason to promote the fun, not to remove or derail from it. My idea just puts the point where the fun is supposed to be: near an objective to fight for, with some sort of defensive structure.

The point is to let the players fight for something instead of roaming around a zone to just gank every players on sight. It's about giving a goal and objective to the PvP. And about offering a reward in doing so. The reward is just a way to direct the players there. It's a guidance to create gameplay.

This already happens on DAoC and I don't see where it's a problem. These hotspots are also public, so everyone can join and get some fun out of them. There aren't mandatory requirements.

Gaming the system is only bad if it blocks other players from being able to compete. Your system isn't fleshed out enough to really be able to assess that. All you're really talking about is adding an objective to PvP to add meaning to it. The only place we disagree is that you want to create a second economy out of points and I think you can just make it interact with the general economy that exists in the PvE resource system.

On death penalties, people talking about a need for item damage or xp debt miss the point. Even without any of these things there is an enormous penalty for death, lost time. You lose time reorganising the group, getting back to wherever you were, and of course losing all the time you spent in the battle not getting rewarded for success.

As regards motivations, objectives, etc, well if you want anything other than endless pointless irrelevant group v group ganking then you need to build the game world around it, which only daoc and sb even really tried to do. PvP in a game like EQ2 will irrelevant other than as a diversion. The CoH and WoW devs realised this and made pvp a sideshow within the main servers, this way at least everyone can take part from time to time without having to xp in a separate place, this makes pvp a fun occasional guild activity, instead of the source of much angst and division amongst 'teh community'.

I think WoW did an ok job of making PvP an alternative to Raiding. They are both difficult for different reasons but allow players to increase their skills (and therefore their prowess) within fulltime activity experiences.

Without some point to EQ2's system, I wholly agree it'll be irrelevant. It's why I think the EQ2 servers will be the least populated in the short term. However, we also don't know the full depth of their thinking. With all of the changes of late I wouldn't be surprised of node/zone ownership was being worked on. This is a different team than the EQ1 of days gone by, with more vigorous motivations.

Too measured, too reasonable.  In the spirit of discussion - I request that you use swift, sweeping and firm judgement.