Genesis Forums

Draugor wrote:Please do so, you'll notice that most guilds are pvpable tho, not all are good for blitzattacks like the BDA, morguls or Calians, but still very useable

I guess I am unclear on what "usable" means. Do you believe that given the same size, lets say Hero, and equal gear (approximately obviously, I don't have the ability to directly compare weapons for instance) that any 2 guilds in a stand up fight, without the use of extraordinary tactics, and purely on guild skills alone the numbers of wins for each would be close to 50%? That is where the word "balance" comes in, and my argument against the use of the word in other threads. Player skill and tactics should be the deciding factor, and I would argue that a lot of the time your guild matters.

Vyasa wrote:An idea for an easy, quick fix, consisting of three steps:

• Make all equipment and items belonging to a player slain in PVP remain on the player. If it is too difficult to implement, then simply make player bodies non lootable except by the player they belong to.

• Create a hard-coded, automatic PVP off option that marks both the victim and the aggressor, rendering them unable to participate in it until next Arma.

• Establish a dynamic stat-based check for PVP similar to discipline which limits not only the small player from attacking the big one, but the other way around too

Rationale per step:

• Death exp loss is covered by recovery. Not the biggest of issues. The main problem is the loss of equipment which is an arduous task, oftentimes the main reason a player says 'Oh to hell with it... ' and quits is because of the loss of equipment and the pain it is to gather more.

• A hard-coded way to avoid griefing or overdoing pvp.

• A way to preventing #2 from becoming a: 'I'll catch you next Arma!' (The player will need to recover first) as well as avoiding disparate size differences from becoming an issue.

Additional suggestion:

• Remove snares as a guild-only ability and make them global, item or skill based (global high enough block for everyone?) The rationale for this being a way to make everyone equally capable of trapping you, or simply walking away.

Interesting at all? Ideas? Suggestions? Possible consequences? Any foreseeable issues here that could be prevented?

1 - equipment loss vs xp loss: lol, what mortal lvl/guild affiliation you have/had? this point is ridiculous.
2 - hard-coded aggressor/victim stuff - that is actually nice idea; but I would even expand it - if you was involved in killing of another player you can't attack him for let's say month ('you can't attack xxx, because you feel pity looking at him/her'). maybe make possible for guild councils to officially agree for war to shorten this period (to couple of days for example) - war declaration must be mutually accepted by two guilds involved.
3 - dynamic stat check: well I don't like your idea here, but I am thinking of something to achieve similar goal: make numbers count!
a) more ppl attacking one guy = def/parry significantly decresed - it's actually reasonable, cause it's way harder to defend urself from number of foes
b) make team skills global (I am doing something against my personal agenda as a Knight - yay!): global rescue (failures should exhaust), some kind of global skill to 'break' the rescue (failures should exhaust), block should work faster.
c) increase fatigue while pvp'ing
d) decrease discipline checks while teamed (well isn't how it works in reality - ppl are way braver while backed up)

this way smaller chars that are being griefed could gang up and go against the opressor.

of course reward/punishment system regarding pvp should be reviewed (Kitriana made a big note about it, but I am repeating this every now and then since quite some time, cause currently the only reward* from pvp is some kind of psycho-satisfaction for griefers / maybe and punishment for victim can discourage ppl from the game - just like we re witnessing it in this topic)

of course no 2 (stuff that Dread is repeating) - balance (not only guilds/races - but also eq and pvp-related items)

* i can imagine something like list on official website with best pvpers and all kills noted (xxx killed yyy + log? ) - something similar to current rankings (so 'prestige' could be kind of reward for pvpers - just like rankings are 'reward' for grinders).

just my 2 cents (or even less, since ideas are cheap )

kirsach wrote: Sorry Cherek but you are wrong. Peace is not boring. PvP is boring and force me and other to stóp play or switch to alt. Im even ready to pay higher tax for not participate in any PvP. I just want to grow. I wanmt to hit extr. Violent Brute and make 3 progresses per 8h of play. And I know many people such as me.

Bonk had the same oppinion as me. Do you remember mail action we make several months ago sending mails to wizards and Keepers against autohunt trigs and generalyy aginst pvp?

Well, this option would imply that you could never attack other players, nor assist your friends (on your group or otherwise) from harm if they are attacked. The only option would be to stand idly by and watch them be assaulted/mowed down if some superior force assaulted them and they did not have the pvp off option in their guild.

Do I understand this idea correctly?

Sorry, this might end up in the Flames section, but I can't hold it in. I respect your opinion, but I do not think this is a good idea.

Kvator wrote: war declaration must be mutually accepted by two guilds involved.

Really?

nils wrote:Sorry, this might end up in the Flames section, but I can't hold it in. I respect your opinion, but I do not think this is a good idea.

Kvator wrote: war declaration must be mutually accepted by two guilds involved.

Really?

you actually understood that it was added as a exception to global anti-griefing thing idea (which prevent killing same guy over and over), when both sides want to pvp as much as possible?

I take things out of context.

PvP restrictions are stupid and destroy the game. See arguments above.

nils wrote:I take things out of context.

PvP restrictions are stupid and destroy the game. See arguments above.

yes PvP restrictions are stupid (if you read my WHOLE post you will see that my ideas are mostly about EXPANDING pvp)
griefing restrictions (killing same person over and over) are not.

Vyasa wrote:An idea for an easy, quick fix, consisting of three steps:

• Make all equipment and items belonging to a player slain in PVP remain on the player.
  [...]
  The main problem is the loss of equipment which is an arduous task, oftentimes the main reason a player says 'Oh to hell with it... ' and quits is because of the loss of equipment and the pain it is to gather more.

I think you are talking about a different game. In the version of genesis mud (http://www.genesismud.org) i play loosing equipment is nothing compared to death and loss of experience. Recovery from death takes considerable effort and time.
Your idea is erroneous.

nils wrote:I take things out of context.

PvP restrictions are stupid and destroy the game. See arguments above.

I generally agree. Genesis in my mind is a sandbox, not a theme park.

I'd prefer to see a character wipe and a redesign of the pvp combat system that weights a players skills more heavily than a players stats, a rock/paper/scissors balancing of guilds/races, and an audit of magical weapon types and distribution - than pvp carve outs and restrictions.

The best content Genesis has is player generated, and a lot of that is generated by conflict. Restricting pvp is as distasteful to me as the idea of allowing botting, or banning roleplay. There is a lot the wizard community can do to level the playing field before resorting to some of the extreme ideas that have been floated.

Dread wrote:

Draugor wrote:Please do so, you'll notice that most guilds are pvpable tho, not all are good for blitzattacks like the BDA, morguls or Calians, but still very useable

I guess I am unclear on what "usable" means. Do you believe that given the same size, lets say Hero, and equal gear (approximately obviously, I don't have the ability to directly compare weapons for instance) that any 2 guilds in a stand up fight, without the use of extraordinary tactics, and purely on guild skills alone the numbers of wins for each would be close to 50%? That is where the word "balance" comes in, and my argument against the use of the word in other threads. Player skill and tactics should be the deciding factor, and I would argue that a lot of the time your guild matters.

Now, I am really not an expert on balance and it's not my "job" to balance things, we Admins have different areas we're in charge of. Mine deals with managing wizards and their projects, and making sure to we add high quality content in the game etc. For balance Gorboth or Cotillion could explain things better.

I however know enough to tell you that it's never been the idea that any two players of different guilds can fight 1vs1 and end up 50% wins. In many cases it's probably 100% in favour of one guild, but the guild winning 0% of the time might win against another guild, and/or in another situation. The idea has always been some type of "rock-paper-scissors" model as I understand it, where guild A beats guild B, and guild B beats guild C, and guild C beats guild A. Extremely simplified of course.

Mixing in all our layman options makes it more complex, we also have racial differences, and of course the fact that some guilds are recoded and follow new balance standards, and others are not, and follow old standards. The goal is obviously that all guilds should be playable in both PVE and PVP, but some might be better or worse in different situations though. Some guilds have more PVP-focus, some guilds are better grinders, some got better burst damage... etc.

So no, you can't pick two guilds, let them fight and it'll be 50-50. That's not how it is, and thats not how it should be either.