Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The latest devblog. Forced PvP is gone.

145791014

Comments

  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,829
    edited March 6
    Bloodaxes said:
    Bloodaxes said:
    Iselin said:
    Yes. It was changed because of griefing, not because PVP was forced. There's a big difference. They simply failed to use their heads and make proper changes.
    "Proper changes" such as? I've yet to see an OWPvP system that discourages griefing enough that it becomes a rare thing. OWPvP = griefing in my 20 years of experience playing MMOs.

    I'm not a fan of flagging because that's just an artificial and gamey toggle but at least they got the faction thing right for my taste because FFA is something I hate with a passion - games need to have an "us vs. them" component built in and not just let players form their own gangs.

    What they didn't get right was that the PvP is not zone based where the PvP zones ARE open world with no flags.

    The risk/reward part of losing your stuff when killed is something else altogether that is more about itemization and how replaceable items are than anything else related to PvP so I'm kind of neutral on that one.
    You just mentioned zones yourself :P that’s a perfectly viable solution and it’s far less contrived because you can easily tie a zone to law while a toggle is... well fake. I mentioned in one of my previous posts games like eve, daoc, Albion. They’re not perfect, but no game of any kind ever will be. 
    That has never been a good solution for me. There's ALWAYS incentives to go in the pvp zones, they're not optional.
    Then the game wouldn’t be for you. 
    Then your suggestion means squat. If you're not going to offer a solution that benefits both equally what's the point in having both playstyles?
    If you’re trying to make a game for everyone it’s going to fail somewhere. The zones give the reprieve from “forced pvp” without breaking the theme if the game and making a toggle. 

    Remember this game was originally intended as an open world pvp game. 
    ultimateduck
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • BloodaxesBloodaxes Member EpicPosts: 4,267
    Bloodaxes said:
    Bloodaxes said:
    Iselin said:
    Yes. It was changed because of griefing, not because PVP was forced. There's a big difference. They simply failed to use their heads and make proper changes.
    "Proper changes" such as? I've yet to see an OWPvP system that discourages griefing enough that it becomes a rare thing. OWPvP = griefing in my 20 years of experience playing MMOs.

    I'm not a fan of flagging because that's just an artificial and gamey toggle but at least they got the faction thing right for my taste because FFA is something I hate with a passion - games need to have an "us vs. them" component built in and not just let players form their own gangs.

    What they didn't get right was that the PvP is not zone based where the PvP zones ARE open world with no flags.

    The risk/reward part of losing your stuff when killed is something else altogether that is more about itemization and how replaceable items are than anything else related to PvP so I'm kind of neutral on that one.
    You just mentioned zones yourself :P that’s a perfectly viable solution and it’s far less contrived because you can easily tie a zone to law while a toggle is... well fake. I mentioned in one of my previous posts games like eve, daoc, Albion. They’re not perfect, but no game of any kind ever will be. 
    That has never been a good solution for me. There's ALWAYS incentives to go in the pvp zones, they're not optional.
    Then the game wouldn’t be for you. 
    Then your suggestion means squat. If you're not going to offer a solution that benefits both equally what's the point in having both playstyles?
    If you’re trying to make a game for everyone it’s going to fail somewhere. The zones give the reprieve from “forced pvp” without breaking the theme if the game and making a toggle. 

    Remember this game was originally intended as an open world pvp game. 
    Well, that's most of the "mmos" releasing. Trying to please everyone. It sucks for both parties unfortunately.

  • ultimateduckultimateduck Member RarePosts: 752
    Utinni said:
    Bloodaxes said:
    Iselin said:
    Yes. It was changed because of griefing, not because PVP was forced. There's a big difference. They simply failed to use their heads and make proper changes.
    "Proper changes" such as? I've yet to see an OWPvP system that discourages griefing enough that it becomes a rare thing. OWPvP = griefing in my 20 years of experience playing MMOs.

    I'm not a fan of flagging because that's just an artificial and gamey toggle but at least they got the faction thing right for my taste because FFA is something I hate with a passion - games need to have an "us vs. them" component built in and not just let players form their own gangs.

    What they didn't get right was that the PvP is not zone based where the PvP zones ARE open world with no flags.

    The risk/reward part of losing your stuff when killed is something else altogether that is more about itemization and how replaceable items are than anything else related to PvP so I'm kind of neutral on that one.
    You just mentioned zones yourself :P that’s a perfectly viable solution and it’s far less contrived because you can easily tie a zone to law while a toggle is... well fake. I mentioned in one of my previous posts games like eve, daoc, Albion. They’re not perfect, but no game of any kind ever will be. 
    That has never been a good solution for me. There's ALWAYS incentives to go in the pvp zones, they're not optional.

    The incentives to go into the frontiers in DAoC was an exp bonus for leveling. All artifacts leveled in the frontiers as well. Everything could be done in the main lands where there was no PvP. There was no forced reason to go there, only convenience.

    Now, there were relics and dungeons accessible through PvP, but again they were incentives, not requirements.

    DAoC did it right. New World dropped the ball.
    New World hasn't released yet btw

    It's a statement based on what they say about their game. Adding a toggle is dropping the ball in any state of the game. They should have stepped back, delayed release and remade a separate zone for PvP. So far, there's been no word of them doing any of that, so...

    They dropped the ball.
    bcbully
  • ZekkZekk Member UncommonPosts: 3
    Well experienced MMORPG player here (first MMOG was AC) and I thought I'd chime in... Due to the covid-19 situation I've decided to try looking into an MMORPG again but I truthfully haven't had much luck with any new MMORPG. Every MMORPG that is popular right now is basically just WoW with worse everything except perhaps one niche aspect (like graphics) and expensive pay stores. I don't see any MMOG in the last 10 years as having surpassed WoW as a whole from a PvE point of view. This game will not either.

    The one thing WoW does not do well is PvP. The only MMORPG that I felt ever did PvP near perfectly (from a mechanic point of view not actual gameplay) was EVE in 2003-2004. True PvP players (not PvE players that want to dabble in instanced arenas) care about risk vs. reward. It's not about ganking low-level players but of course people will gank what is easy prey if they are able to. The reason EVE did PvP well back then was because you could PvP anywhere in the game but the risk of dying in certain areas was negligible because the NPC guards would destroy would-be gankers faster than they could kill most people. This made these area safe. In the safe areas players could still partake in the entire game. You could essentially do all meaningful PvE content in the safe areas (main quest stories, crafting, skills); however, you would be much slower at accomplishing the PvE content (your equipment wouldn't be as good and you'd take longer to upgrade) than people who ventured into the riskier areas (where PvP was easier because there were less or no guards) and you wouldn't have access to all resources (except through trading with players who had the resources you needed).

    What you need to understand though is that this isn't a problem. Players who like PvE content like the content to draw them in and be challenging. It's PvP players that want to bypass the PvE content and go straight to killing other players. This created a very symbiotic relationship between PvE players and PvP players where PvP players would go straight out into high-risk open PvP areas to amass resources/items while killing anyone else they saw (full loot is important) then heading back to PvE areas to sell their valuable resources to PvE players who needed those resources for helping with their PvE content. Meanwhile the PvE players were the ones crafting the equipment for the PvP players because PvP players couldn't be bothered with that content and just wanted to kill people. It worked great. PvE players felt they could do all PvE content without PvPing yet they felt they were contributing to PvP by supporting PvPers with equipment. If PvErs decided they amassed enough wealth to partake in PvP without being scared of losing their equipment, then they could.

    I'm really surprised no one has figured out how to make a PvP game in 20 years. You need areas where you cannot be attacked and in these areas you need to be able to accomplish all PvE content; otherwise, PvE players will never be satisfied but you need incentive for venturing into PvP content other than yay I get to fight people. You want to entice PvE players into venturing into PvP for an actual benefit to their game, yet one they willingly take the risk to partake in yet one that isn't actually required for them to enjoy the game. Put this all together properly and you have a great PvP+PvE MMORPG. Try to do neither properly and you'll end up with this game which is going to be a joke upon release.
    bcbully
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,309
    Zekk said:
     You want to entice PvE players into venturing into PvP for an actual benefit to their game, yet one they willingly take the risk to partake in yet one that isn't actually required for them to enjoy the game. 
    That hardly ever works any more although developers do keep trying, It worked in games like DAoC when the premiere PvE spot was Darkness Falls, a massive dungeon you had to enter through the PvP zones and only after your home alliance, through capturing some objectives in PvP had opened up access.

    A lot of people these days seem to have drawn a line in the sand and identify as either a PvPer or a PvEr. Instead of accessing the content that isn't in their wheelhouse they instead take to forums to whine about how it isn't fair that to get item "x" you need to go to zone "y."

    I've seen both sides whine in ESO where some things useful for PvP can only be gotten by running PvE dungeons and where some abilities that are very useful for PvE can only be leveled by PvPing.

    It's too bad but that's how it is in 2020.
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • Cybersig211Cybersig211 Member UncommonPosts: 139
    The problem i see is that this game, late into its development life, has decided to totally swap the metaphorical engine that will turn this games population.

    Guild vs Guild territory fights and open world pvp, with no caps on players participating.  Thats worked well for EVE and Albion.  It makes even bad players able to overcome skill by numbers.  It creates a dedicated playerbase.  It creates drama and interest in the game.  This is an interesting model, theres no AAA mmorpg format doing this right now, just eve and albion.

    You move from that to PVE focused with esport style pvp, you are not playing ball in the court of WOW.  A game that has almost 20 years of content under its belt.  How do they plan to keep people playing endgame content between xpacs?  How fast can they balance classes and items?  Its a lot more work to go this route and keep people playing.  Also this format has an issue with the bulk playerbase, a game like this is designed for the top of the community.  Most wont do well with esport pvp, many wont raid.  Does this game have the middle content most will play in the quantity and quality that will keep people playing who are casual?

    It would have been far smarter to continue the old format, build a community based on guild war that everyone can be a part of, and then slow drip pve content.

    I dunno what a few months until launch added is going to realistically do for this game, other than missing out on COVID related playerbase boom.

  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,148
    Iselin said:
    Zekk said:
     You want to entice PvE players into venturing into PvP for an actual benefit to their game, yet one they willingly take the risk to partake in yet one that isn't actually required for them to enjoy the game. 
    That hardly ever works any more although developers do keep trying, It worked in games like DAoC when the premiere PvE spot was Darkness Falls, a massive dungeon you had to enter through the PvP zones and only after your home alliance, through capturing some objectives in PvP had opened up access.

    A lot of people these days seem to have drawn a line in the sand and identify as either a PvPer or a PvEr. Instead of accessing the content that isn't in their wheelhouse they instead take to forums to whine about how it isn't fair that to get item "x" you need to go to zone "y."

    I've seen both sides whine in ESO where some things useful for PvP can only be gotten by running PvE dungeons and where some abilities that are very useful for PvE can only be leveled by PvPing.

    It's too bad but that's how it is in 2020.
    If you can’t do both you’re only playing half the game and you’re not that good at the game imho.
    Iselinultimateduck
  • AngryElfAngryElf Member UncommonPosts: 155
    Iselin said:
    Zekk said:
     You want to entice PvE players into venturing into PvP for an actual benefit to their game, yet one they willingly take the risk to partake in yet one that isn't actually required for them to enjoy the game. 
    That hardly ever works any more although developers do keep trying, It worked in games like DAoC when the premiere PvE spot was Darkness Falls, a massive dungeon you had to enter through the PvP zones and only after your home alliance, through capturing some objectives in PvP had opened up access.

    A lot of people these days seem to have drawn a line in the sand and identify as either a PvPer or a PvEr. Instead of accessing the content that isn't in their wheelhouse they instead take to forums to whine about how it isn't fair that to get item "x" you need to go to zone "y."

    I've seen both sides whine in ESO where some things useful for PvP can only be gotten by running PvE dungeons and where some abilities that are very useful for PvE can only be leveled by PvPing.

    It's too bad but that's how it is in 2020.
    I personally like this for Rift/ESO.  Made me venture out of my comfort zone and get a taste of the other side.  If min/maxers have to endure some split, I see nothing wrong with that as long as those who don't can still remain competitive. People will always find a reason to complain, and hopefully those people won't play, so who cares? Just don't make the PvP rewards group/raid/win dependent, but based on individual performance.  I don't see the difficulty here. 
  • kitaradkitarad Member EpicPosts: 5,841
    bcbully said:
    Iselin said:
    Zekk said:
     You want to entice PvE players into venturing into PvP for an actual benefit to their game, yet one they willingly take the risk to partake in yet one that isn't actually required for them to enjoy the game. 
    That hardly ever works any more although developers do keep trying, It worked in games like DAoC when the premiere PvE spot was Darkness Falls, a massive dungeon you had to enter through the PvP zones and only after your home alliance, through capturing some objectives in PvP had opened up access.

    A lot of people these days seem to have drawn a line in the sand and identify as either a PvPer or a PvEr. Instead of accessing the content that isn't in their wheelhouse they instead take to forums to whine about how it isn't fair that to get item "x" you need to go to zone "y."

    I've seen both sides whine in ESO where some things useful for PvP can only be gotten by running PvE dungeons and where some abilities that are very useful for PvE can only be leveled by PvPing.

    It's too bad but that's how it is in 2020.
    If you can’t do both you’re only playing half the game and you’re not that good at the game imho.
    People don't play games just because they need to be good. Lots of us are just so so like me. I am not a strong player and I do poorly in any game requiring blocking and twitch combat and I don't expect to be good at it because my reflexes are shit.

    I do however like to play games like these. I am awfully glad that game companies continue to make games for people like me and I want to contribute in cooperative games where I stand a chance of actually being useful. Even if I may never ever be able to be good at PvP if I can help my team I am happy to play like that. I do not however want to be in a game where I can be stalked and killed and have no chance to fight back.

    DAoC got it right. I think the few PvP fights I did participate in never had me pitched against people trying to kill me in scenarios where the fight was vastly unfair.
    ultimateduckRaidonnNyghthowler

  • PeZzyPeZzy Member UncommonPosts: 154
    DAoC was plagued with endless crowd control skills. It killed the game.
    Shadowbane is a perfect example of open world PvP's mistakes.
    Darkfall is another example of how not to make a game. Lose your city when you are at work.
    Open World PvP games have an initial spurt of interest, but then quickly die off. They can never recover, because they are entirely newbie unfriendly.
  • ultimateduckultimateduck Member RarePosts: 752
    PeZzy said:
    DAoC was plagued with endless crowd control skills. It killed the game.
    Shadowbane is a perfect example of open world PvP's mistakes.
    Darkfall is another example of how not to make a game. Lose your city when you are at work.
    Open World PvP games have an initial spurt of interest, but then quickly die off. They can never recover, because they are entirely newbie unfriendly.

    Yeah, no. DAoC had immunity timers and most CC was easy to break.

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,309
    edited June 14
    PeZzy said:
    DAoC was plagued with endless crowd control skills. It killed the game.
    Shadowbane is a perfect example of open world PvP's mistakes.
    Darkfall is another example of how not to make a game. Lose your city when you are at work.
    Open World PvP games have an initial spurt of interest, but then quickly die off. They can never recover, because they are entirely newbie unfriendly.

    Yeah, no. DAoC had immunity timers and most CC was easy to break.

    Eventually they did, yes, but DAoC at release and for a few months had CC on steroids that was neither easy to break and lasted in some cases, for a minute or more.

    And even after they fixed it, perma-stun was still an issue until they finally added partial stun immunity based on having been stunned recently that lowered how long you were stunned for. Thanes were especially bad for that and it was the reason why Midgard's nickname in the game was Stungard. Air Theurgist's pets were also capable of perma-stunning although at least they were single target only,

    All the games these days that have short term CC that lasts 2 or 3 seconds at most have DAoC to thank for showing the world how not to do it.
    bcbullyMendel
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 7,561
    edited June 14
    PeZzy said:
    DAoC was plagued with endless crowd control skills. It killed the game.
    Shadowbane is a perfect example of open world PvP's mistakes.
    Darkfall is another example of how not to make a game. Lose your city when you are at work.
    Open World PvP games have an initial spurt of interest, but then quickly die off. They can never recover, because they are entirely newbie unfriendly.

    I had the same problem in Warhammer..>The further you went in the game the more the CC was a nightmare, especially for melee fighters......I remember a couple times hardly even being able to play because I was crowd controlled the entire time....As for new World, it seems to be bouncing all over the place as far as its rule set goes. It sounds like they are trying t oplease everyone, and that usually ends up pleasing no one.
  • ultimateduckultimateduck Member RarePosts: 752
    I remember immunity timers being implemented pretty early on in DAoC.

  • EhliyaEhliya Member UncommonPosts: 220
    I am no fan of gankers or griefers, but they should have gone with their original concept and see how it worked.  I think the griefing can be handled in other ways, and a toggle can create new types of griefing (people using the toggle to harass, knowing you can't touch them).  This was more a business decision.  I am basically a care bear/RPer who doesn't mind PvP (and am just so so at it) but do value the greater intensity of a open world where anything can happen, as it encourages people to depend on one another and can be more exciting.
  • sycogenesissycogenesis Member UncommonPosts: 79
    I have 0 sympathy for you try harders because You don't get to keep your open world forced pvp because you ruinit   not the carebears not the devs  YOU. wHEN YOU CAMP PPL BECAUSE YOU THINK ITS FUNNY OR FUN YOU RUIN PPLS GAME TIME  and your kind is a dying breed . Open world forced pvp is not marketable when it's the sole aspect of a game time n time again markets have shown this so therefor if you want forced pvp just stop being an asshole oh wait you can't lol enjoy 
    Margrave
  • kitaradkitarad Member EpicPosts: 5,841
    Ehliya said:
    I am no fan of gankers or griefers, but they should have gone with their original concept and see how it worked.  I think the griefing can be handled in other ways, and a toggle can create new types of griefing (people using the toggle to harass, knowing you can't touch them).  This was more a business decision.  I am basically a care bear/RPer who doesn't mind PvP (and am just so so at it) but do value the greater intensity of a open world where anything can happen, as it encourages people to depend on one another and can be more exciting.
    How do you harass exactly ? You mean just playing the game collecting resources while not allowing someone else to just kill you and take that resource. What is this harassment you speak of that an unflagged person could wreck upon others.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 8,275
    PeZzy said:
    DAoC was plagued with endless crowd control skills. It killed the game.
    Shadowbane is a perfect example of open world PvP's mistakes.
    Darkfall is another example of how not to make a game. Lose your city when you are at work.
    Open World PvP games have an initial spurt of interest, but then quickly die off. They can never recover, because they are entirely newbie unfriendly.

    I had the same problem in Warhammer..>The further you went in the game the more the CC was a nightmare, especially for melee fighters......I remember a couple times hardly even being able to play because I was crowd controlled the entire time....As for new World, it seems to be bouncing all over the place as far as its rule set goes. It sounds like they are trying t oplease everyone, and that usually ends up pleasing no one.
    Stun lock Rogues in WoW were a mess as well.
    Margrave
  • kitaradkitarad Member EpicPosts: 5,841
    edited June 17
    Nanfoodle said:
    PeZzy said:
    DAoC was plagued with endless crowd control skills. It killed the game.
    Shadowbane is a perfect example of open world PvP's mistakes.
    Darkfall is another example of how not to make a game. Lose your city when you are at work.
    Open World PvP games have an initial spurt of interest, but then quickly die off. They can never recover, because they are entirely newbie unfriendly.

    I had the same problem in Warhammer..>The further you went in the game the more the CC was a nightmare, especially for melee fighters......I remember a couple times hardly even being able to play because I was crowd controlled the entire time....As for new World, it seems to be bouncing all over the place as far as its rule set goes. It sounds like they are trying t oplease everyone, and that usually ends up pleasing no one.
    Stun lock Rogues in WoW were a mess as well.
    Warlock fear?

    No crowd control of any kind is best. Duke it out with weapons then you can prove your skill not just hit one skill and win.

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,157
    edited June 18
    As I already said in a post in the "Pub" here, the developers tested how open world PvP would work, realized that the usual suspects rapidly turned their MMORPG into a mindless gankfest, but this time, for a change, unlike those incompetent indie developers who made crap games like Darkfail, they adapted and removed that flawled system to replaced it with a more controlled one where taking over their game and turning it into Quake Arena is not possible.

    This personally gives me confidence that those developers are knowing what they are doing and where they want their game to go.
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Intel Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER EVO 8GB DDR6 - RAM: 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Samsung U32J590 32" 4K monitor - Second display: Philips 273v 27" monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset - Sound: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.


  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 17,650
    Now, in New World you have to opt into Faction conflicts and Wars for territory ownership. Amazon Game Studios said doing so will be extremely rewarding, with in-game bonuses and rewards up for grabs. This new system is called PvP War, a 50 versus 50 PvP battle "by appointment"

    Keywords>EXTREMELY rewarding.So this is really saying you MUST pvp or you will have a lesser experience from the game.So although it might not be forced,in a way it  really is forced pvp.


    Mendel

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • SkitzoXSkitzoX Member UncommonPosts: 146
    edited June 18
    Wizardry said:
    Now, in New World you have to opt into Faction conflicts and Wars for territory ownership. Amazon Game Studios said doing so will be extremely rewarding, with in-game bonuses and rewards up for grabs. This new system is called PvP War, a 50 versus 50 PvP battle "by appointment"

    Keywords>EXTREMELY rewarding.So this is really saying you MUST pvp or you will have a lesser experience from the game.So although it might not be forced,in a way it  really is forced pvp.


    Right now you gain an extra 10% xp. Not what I would consider worth the extra risk and at max level is obviously useless. The only reason to flag is if your leaving town with the intent of trying to kill someone. If your going to go gather or farm or whatever flagging just puts you at a disadvantage to pve players. There has been a tremendous amount of negative feedback over the lack of incentives and rewards for open world pvp between factions and we may have gotten through. Only time will tell.
    bcbully
  • kitaradkitarad Member EpicPosts: 5,841
    edited June 18
    SkitzoX said:
    Wizardry said:
    Now, in New World you have to opt into Faction conflicts and Wars for territory ownership. Amazon Game Studios said doing so will be extremely rewarding, with in-game bonuses and rewards up for grabs. This new system is called PvP War, a 50 versus 50 PvP battle "by appointment"

    Keywords>EXTREMELY rewarding.So this is really saying you MUST pvp or you will have a lesser experience from the game.So although it might not be forced,in a way it  really is forced pvp.


    Right now you gain an extra 10% xp. Not what I would consider worth the extra risk and at max level is obviously useless. The only reason to flag is if your leaving town with the intent of trying to kill someone. If your going to go gather or farm or whatever flagging just puts you at a disadvantage to pve players. There has been a tremendous amount of negative feedback over the lack of incentives and rewards for open world pvp between factions and we may have gotten through. Only time will tell.
    They can increase it to even 20% ain't an incentive for me. So those people who enjoy it, will flag up.

  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,148
    kitarad said:
    SkitzoX said:
    Wizardry said:
    Now, in New World you have to opt into Faction conflicts and Wars for territory ownership. Amazon Game Studios said doing so will be extremely rewarding, with in-game bonuses and rewards up for grabs. This new system is called PvP War, a 50 versus 50 PvP battle "by appointment"

    Keywords>EXTREMELY rewarding.So this is really saying you MUST pvp or you will have a lesser experience from the game.So although it might not be forced,in a way it  really is forced pvp.


    Right now you gain an extra 10% xp. Not what I would consider worth the extra risk and at max level is obviously useless. The only reason to flag is if your leaving town with the intent of trying to kill someone. If your going to go gather or farm or whatever flagging just puts you at a disadvantage to pve players. There has been a tremendous amount of negative feedback over the lack of incentives and rewards for open world pvp between factions and we may have gotten through. Only time will tell.
    They can increase it to even 20% ain't an incentive for me. So those people who enjoy it, will flag up.
    No they won’t no reward. 
    tzervo
  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 7,103
    Instead of appealing to the players that weren't going to play their game in the first place. Why didn't they just design ways to stop the parts of the game that were making the players leave. They could have made a better system. 

    This new iteration isn't going to please neither PvP nor PvE players. It's like the proverb "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush', they should have stuck with their audience.
    SkitzoXNyctelios
    Crichton: 'If he masters wormhole technology, what will he use it for?'
    Scorpius: 'Faster delivery of pizzas.'

Sign In or Register to comment.