Warfields/PvP Ranks/Faction Balance/Immunity/Items

Discussion in 'PVP Discussion' started by ARCHIVED-EndevorX, Jun 29, 2010.

  1. ARCHIVED-EndevorX Guest

    Share your perspective on the matters presented, if you would!
    1.) Warfields
    2.) PvP Titles
    3.) Faction Balance
    4.) Immunity
    5.) Items
    1st & foremost I'd like to offer a disclaimer, given the relatively utter quiet seen on the front of announcements & inquiries.

    If the following ides are SINCERELY being considered because the impact to gameplay is being taken SERIOUSLY, as well as the SOLUTIONS, then forgive the accusational nature of this thread's title. But, given Smokejumper's last post in "Re: Prayer from a Nagafen player. (Dear God, please fix PvP.)", I feel open-ended perception is due in this regard.

    While our state of affairs may presently be portrayed as conflicted, we clearly have a defender for the cause, that we might not lose faith in the powers that be.

    1.) Warfields

    A. Will warfields ever be distributed relative to tier, in their respective zones?

    - Players below 90 have NO EFFECT on the success of their faction.

    - Norrathians in tiers 2-8 deserve their own warfield brackets where they can CONTRIBUTE, instead of hinder server performance for the competitors that are instrumental for their team's success.

    - Restrict participation in warfields objectives to only players of that zone's tier.

    - T2: Antonica/Commonlands

    - T3: Thundering Steppes/Nektulos Forest

    - T4: Enchanted Lands/Zek, the Orcish Wastes

    - T5: Everfrost/Lavastorm

    - T6: Sinking Sands/Pillars of Flame

    - T7: Tenebrous Tangle/Barren Sky

    - T8: Kylong Plains/Jarsath Wastes

    - T9: Sundered Frontier/Stonebrunt Highlands

    - Current, simplistic, vanilla warfields system could be used for this purpose, until individual, innovative, unique, and dynamic goals & contested objectives are developed.

    B. When will we have a warfields tab under the zones menu?

    - This is vital if a player wants to ensure their agenda can accomodate both PvE and some sample of "vibrant" PvP.

    - Actively display both existing AND new warfields timers if a new instance of that warfields zone opens.

    - Inform players the premise behind victory and loss for each respective warfields version.

    C. Will objectives ever change beyond rehashed, cookie-cutter clones?

    - Just defend this keep. kthx...awesome. =_="...

    - EverQuest II deserves INNOVATIVE gameplay mechanics BEYOND THE NORM.

    - You are SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT, a FRANCHISE. Your products are worth ACCLAIM, not tantamount plagiarism from past game developers.

    - Some might scorn as though being subjected to charades, but the completely uninformed paranoia administrators expect players to have is uncalled for. Is it even okay to click over to an ongoing warfield that you couldn't enter if you weren't grouped? What we have currently, these are charades. Yes, writs & basic faction PvP will be addressed further on.

    - Dynamic, player-sensitive, progressive sequences ensure the pace of action is frenetic, ambiguous, & easy to get hooked on.

    - For example:

    Seliri@Nagafen wrote:
    D. Reward systems must be revised - NO auto-granting tokens for getting flagged.

    - 30 mins w/ the OLD writ poster reuse were worth 15 open world PvP tokens.

    - Recent lists are now seemingly infinite, making the writ poster reuse of 5 mins no more efficient, or less efficient, than a writ poster reuse of 10 mins w/ a cap on the recent list.

    - AFKers profit from doing NOTHING w/ warfields automatically issuing rewards. These are dead-weight leechers that might negatively impact zone performance, existing due to this flaw in warfields implementation.

    - PvP writs completed during active warfields should reward double tokens. THIS would put the focus back on open world PvP & organization.

    - Warfields victors should be given their choice of:
    · 10% mount speed
    · 20% in-combat runspeed
    · 5 Crit Bonus
    · 15 pet crit bonus
    · 5% spell double attack
    · 5% flurry
    · 15% AOE auto attack
    · +5 meters spell/combat art range
    · 10% Reuse
    · 20% Casting
    · +50% Adv./Trade/AA XP (stacks w/ mentoring & potions)
    · 30 DPS/Haste proc 2x/min (35 sec duration, stacks w/ all item procs)
    · -10% resistability (combat art & spell applicable)
    · Potion/Signet/Relic/PvP trinket/Tinkered item reuse HALVED (100% reduced) & failure chances removed
    · Fear (5 sec duration, 30 m range, 1 min reuse, no dmg, 1 sec casting [unaffected by casting speed])
    · 75% snare (10 sec duration, 30 m range, 1 min reuse, no dmg, 1 sec casting [unaffected by casting speed])
    · Single group instance timer reset (usable ONCE a day on ONE instance; players can NOT enter an instance reset w/ this feature if they already have done so that day)
    · Adornment extrication (usable ONCE biweekly, every 2 weeks, this would let a player remove an adornment from an item)
    · Equipment liberator (usable ONCE monthly, this would let a player unattune 1 item)

    - Warfields bonuses would last until that character logged off, or until the opposing faction won a warfields of that player's tier.

    - Creating in-demand warfields victor effects, operable in PvE as well, will ensure the attraction to them is strong & consistent.

    E. Start all warfields at the same time to distribute population/server load.
    - Staggered warfields initiation in multiple instances decreases gameplay quality due to elevated latency (greater congestion).

    - Even when trying to organize in 1 (when warfields start at the same time), many do their own thing regardless of coordination calls, as when 1 finishes, the other tends to have 2 towers down.

    F. Warfields instance population caps are pointless

    - Is it understood that warfields instancing is broken, in that players can enter whichever instance their groupmate is in, even if it reads as "full" to ungrouped players?

    - These only ensure the imbalanced faction locks opposition out, as Freeportians barely ever seem to mass invite their peers to "Go to" the respective warfields instance, as Qeynosians do.

    - Unifying the start of warfields & distributing them by tier will effectively destroy lag issues.

    - Consolidating warfields timers & removing ineffective instance population caps that only bloccade competition will be enough to promote performance, until warfields can be added to each tier's zones.

    2.) PvP Titles

    A. Why is there a delay in introducing the old fame/infamy/notoriety system?

    B. Toggling PvP ranks is the only new desired feature.

    B1. Can this be done w/ a 30 sec casting, 1 week reuse ability?

    - Some players might not like participating in an aspect of "vanity", as they deem it. They may think PvP ranks are meaningless, & want to exclude themselves from the hunt relative to such.

    - If a player seeks a PvP environment of reactive consequence & near infinite replay value and longevity, they must be willing to risk the opposition thirsting for their elimination.

    - Should a player decide they can't handle the stress of being consistently hunted as a target once they successfully vie for a top rank, they should receive exclusion (for 1 week) from the bonus that is enacting loss & acquiring gain from foes in a feelable way.

    - To any would-be challenger, are you able to scheme & strategize well enough to reach the top, & become one of the few Overlords?

    C. Fame decay destroys the cyclical, infinite longevity of PvP titles.

    - Hunting that one player ranked above, below, or on par w/ you takes dedication, perseverence, & adroit planning.

    - Being unable to control the fate of the rewards that you've labored for leaves your work meaningless. Players CAN NOT choose to PvP over PvE, because sometimes, enemy factions just AREN'T active.

    - Being able to simultaneously maintain high PvP ranks is only possible W/OUT fame decay. This is vital to the infinite replay value PvP ranks had in their prime.

    - Currently, it IS NOT as developers think. Titles, in their current state, NEVER DECAY while online. EVER. There is NO check that is applied upon zoning that detracts from your fame rank sum. The decay message ONLY appears when you log on after having been offline for some time. Regardless, fame/notoriety/infamy should NEVER decay for the aforementioned reasons.

    D. The unique commodity of EverQuest II PvP WAS the PvP rank system, it was what separated it from other MMOs, giving TRULY LIVE competition to the world of Norrath.

    - For the past year, players of all tiers, playtimes, & playstyles have championed for this to return, acknowledging the currently uninvolving & completely boring, riskless state of PvP titles.

    3.) Faction Balance - Yes, players can choose what faction they play in, but why let the life of the game suffer?

    A. On Nagafen, Qeynos UNDOUBTEDLY outnumbers Freeport at level 90. This results in unenjoyable warfields, due to the lack of a contest.

    B. Open betrayal ABSENT SPELL LOSS according to the relative tier/faction imbalance.

    - Players would be warned, UPON STARTING OR PROGRESSING the questline that would make them an Exile, that they would keep their spells if they successfully betrayed to the needy opposite faction & remained the same class.

    - Players would also be warned that, if they tried to return to the faction w/ an active player surplus/excess, they would lose their spells.

    B1. If a player is active (clocking in feats that would award adventurer XP) for 3+ hours a week, they are included in the "balance" tally as "active players".

    B2. The tally would be recounted every week during a server downtime, to ensure no extra load would be on the server to accomodate this algorithm for equity.

    - The algorithm would check to see if adventurer XP would've been awarded at 5 minute intervals.

    - 36+ confirmed 5 minute intervals of adv. XP gain would tag a character an "active player"

    - After 40 confirmed 5 minute intervals of adv. XP gain, the algorithm would ignore review of that player, to bypass unnecessary strain on the bandwidth performing these calculations.

    B3. "Welcome_Info" would display how many more players in your tier could betray & keep your spells.

    - Active players wouldn't subtract from the allotment of "smuggled" betrayers required to obtain balance UNTIL they SUCCESSFULLY switched from good to evil, or vice versa.

    - If the allotment is reached, players would be warned of their impending spell loss UPON STARTING OR PROGRESSING the questline that would make them an Exile.

    - Active players already Exiled during the

    B4. Balance Tally Example:

    - Freeport has 593 LVL 90 active players (doing feats that would otherwise award adv. XP for 5+ hrs/week)

    - Freeport has 904 LVL 90 inactive players (doing feats that would otherwise award adv. XP for less than 5 hrs/week)

    - Qeynos has 864 LVL 90 active players

    - Qeynos has 1203 LVL 90 inactive players

    - Qeynosian "Welcome_Info" menus would identify 271 spell-reserving slots of SUCCESSFUL betrayal to the opposite faction, as the same class.

    4.) Immunity

    A. Promoting player movement & coordination isn't incentivized as well as it could be. Some players camp their friends or alts in immunity, allowing for hassle free writ completion or warfields tagging.

    - Remove permanent immunity from all overland zones aside from the Dropship Landing in Moors of Ykesha, Paineel in Sundered Frontier, & Moonfield Hamlet in Stonebrunt Highlands.

    - Evacuating would also NOT give you permanent immunity, but an invulnerability timer of 30 sec.

    - War is war, & this change would reinforce that there are no trivial caveats to be taken advantage of, but battle readiness & combatant supremacy.

    - If people "need to AFK", they can call to their Guild Hall or city w/in the immunity countdown.

    5.) Items

    A. Stonewill is procing at it's old PvP values in PvE.

    - This drastically affects the viability of these items for single group instances when compared to the current state of affairs for PvE servers. Fixing this should be urgent enough to go into the next hotfix.

    B. Items w/ "This effect can only trigger once every 60 seconds" are currently NOT procing AT ALL.

    - Admiral's Chain, Grand Admiral's Chain

    - These limitations should be REMOVED, as it completely destroys the claim that they proc 2x/min.

    While deadlines, time, or funding may be constraints, know that it isn't a constraint to divert revenue from Station Cash or Legends of Norrath for the purpose of embellishing one of your highest populated realms (& a major selling point to EverQuest II) w/ TRUE zest, an approach that calls for a revival in lively action.

    No risk, no reward. If you build it, they will come.

    (P.S. If you know of any bugged PvP items, post them here as well!)
  2. ARCHIVED-NoPetKitty Guest

    Haha, and people thought my posts were long.
    You bring up some very good points, in very good detail. Good to know I am not alone, I was worried that I would be when I finally decided to "speak" up.
    I too wonder about SmokeJumper's post though... what good is a new expansion if people are becoming dissatisfied with the existing internal problems?
    I know that we are a minority on the PVP servers, but still, 1 subscription loss here, and 2 there, and 1 over there eventually adds up. Then what if the expansion is bunk for the first couple weeks, and they have to patch it like they usually do? I am sure there are issues with PvE as well, like the Stonewall proc effect that you pointed out. It unfortunately seems to me like EQ2 is starting to have the same reasons why I primarily left EQ1, and that is because they would rather pursue the new money over fixing the broke (censored)-(censored) that they currently have.
    But it is like you said, they are a franchise and typically franchises require large amounts of revenue flow, and worry about profit margins and new revenue building avenues that need pursued, rather than the individual customer.
    I also think that SmokeJumper's post does sum it all up, proof positive that what we are typing about in these forums won't be dealt with for a while, even though they are aware of the "inadequcies".
    I am halfway inclined to just not re-up my account for the duration until something is done. My interest is NOT in a new expansion. Obviously if my money is not good enough to go towards fixing the existing issues, then why would I keep paying for an aspect of service that is "inadequate"? Because I'm loyal? Because I have money and time invested into moving thousands upon thousands of bits of data around on a server? Sorry, loyalty is earned and lost, and I think by SmokeJumper's comment it has moved back to the lost side of the fence, although earlier today it was gaining back.
    My money is also a physical tangable thing, and I can live without the bits of data on a server. Moreover, lets just say for the sake of arguement that all those bits of data are deleted simply because I don't want to support them while they are working on a new expansion. Says a lot about how much each individual matters.
    I just can't believe that a Sr. Producing Developer would have the complete lack of business ettiquette to actually state in barely more candy-coated words than [paraphrasing] " We're aware of the issues, but we could care less about them at the moment because our new Expansion that is going to generate additional revenue is more important".
    The actual page this post is on is here - just hit the "end" key when the page loads: SmokeJumper's post
    For those that cannot get the link to work:
    I totally and completely agree with you EndevorX. But it looks like we all get to wait. Sad. By that time most of our suggestions and ideas will probably be buried and/or forgotten, assuming of course there was even a remote chance of them being considered at all. /shrug
    On a final side note, I almost would be interested to hear what PvP games this guy has made and in what year. Not really to confirm his experience, but just to see what sort of a ride we might be in for. I know with my work I always look back on what projects I have developed and draw on a little bit of that existing completed project to offer some directional insight for future projects.
  3. ARCHIVED-kukiake Guest

    Look Seliri, if you make a TL;DR version using standard white fonts, then I will read that, promise.
  4. ARCHIVED-EndevorX Guest

    Edit: I've moved Olihin's broadcasts to the original post to underscore the political paradigm EQ2 PvPers face.

    Yet there is hope in the land of Norrath.
    And Dorsan, check your PMs, for therein lies a version, dressed in white as ye are accustomed to in thy liking.
  5. ARCHIVED-kukiake Guest

    Hmm... I did read the version in my PM. Well, yeah those are valid points. But IMO the warfield instancing needs to be completely different. I think when one CL instance has a warfield going on, all instances should have the warfield at the same time. Also there should be a different attacker and defender buff both of which would disappear upon getting the reward for those warfields and then you'd have 30 minutes immunity for that buff - to avoid getting multiple rewards in multiple instances. In this case people wouldn't be desperate to get into CL2 because CL1 and CL3 would also have warfields in them at the same time.
  6. ARCHIVED-EndevorX Guest

    Dorsan@Nagafen wrote:
    I agree, and had earlier felt in my heart concurrence therein at such a suggestion (as simultaneous initiation across instances), and as such, shall make such an improvisation to know inclusion within the thoughts of infusion.

    In regard to redundant rewards, I only witnessed this occur when warfields were bestowing 15 tokens.


    Original Post Modifications (Last Edit - 07-05-2010, 11:04 AM AST):
    Feel free to skip this part (and NO not this entire post, ehehehe) if you want, I just made this so that those who already read this thread can review it again if this section is updated.

    lol at nobody telling me I had two 1D sections! Section 1F incoming...O_O"...Made a lil mod to Section 2B1 line 3! 8]
    Section G shall also be introduced, relative to warfields instance caps.

    I've consolidated estranged lines into the appropriate sections, so Part 1 now only extends to Section F (and Part 1C is now Part 1B, and so on, within Part 1)!
    Also, a line on restricting participation in warfields objectives to players of that zone's tier was added as Part 1, Section A, Line 4.

    Included in the original post are now the quoted broadcasts Olihin made 5 days ago, to better represent our state of affairs (these were initially reviewed in my 2nd post of this thread).
    Sadly, my speshul orange colors cannot fit within the character limitations of a post.
    If you get annoyed at reading my posts without the vibrant, colorful life they exude, share this, that we might petition for the limitation on forum posts being annulled.

    Appended a notation on the integrality of warfields victor bonuses as Part 1, Section D, Line 6.

    Modified classification of an "active player" to be 5 hrs/week accomplishing feats that would otherwise give XP, instead of 10hrs/week.

    Included 4 new warfields victor reward choices.

    Changed the beginning of the overall post (the forward, us English speakers say) & the header for Part 1, Section E, and made the past header for Part 1, Section E a line of that section.

    Altered Part 3, Section B2's number of 5 minute intervals to reflect the earlier change, requiring 3 hrs of adventurer XP gain instead of 10, per week, to be deemed an active player.

    Edited Part 1, Section D (warfields rewards) to note that warfields must be changed to no longer automatically grant tokens (currently, automatically giving tokens supports an unneeded drag on bandwidth by having pseudo-participants utilize zone processing power that is best relegated to active players).

    It is done.


    PvP Server Morale?:
    Before you let negative nellies damper your morale, also consider Timetravelling's answer to question #3.
    timetravelling wrote in Re: DEV: Say something!:
    We're not being hung out to dry, but it's..."possible"...that not as much capital that could be committed to the bettering of our environment, is allocated appropriately.
    I consider that there will still be new "campaign" releases of battlegrounds/open world PvP equipment, but the lack of a palpable timetable, or incentivized rankings for open world PvP and battlegrounds placement, is a disheartening circumstance that many of us are aware of.


    Hardline Open World PvP Stimulus:
    As an aside, I would like to again note the value that the destruction of instances & converting them to dungeons, would have for hyperdriving world PvP.
    Though I know this to be a position a bit further on the hardcore spectrum, issues like these, for PvPers only, would best be reviewed through a poll...for PvPers only.
    As I mentioned later in the thread, if removing the guild strategist isn't an option, creating an open world tango locator amenity would be respectable service to innovation in a PvP realm.
    Seliri@Nagafen wrote in Re:GU56 Changes and You!:

    Brainstorming Uniquity in Warfields Objectives:
    1.) Conditional components
    - Strategies that favor melee or casters, scouts or mages, tanks or priests (think the meager task a priest may do to initiate Protector's Realm, but COMPLETELY expand upon it.
    - Simultaneously, coordinated...:
    · ...HP burns on targets that charm/possess/feign death/transform allies
    · ...gathering/environment destruction/climbing/casting/dragging/crafting
    - Temporarily present implements, vital to objective progress
    - Using player corpses (or players possessed/transformed) as fuel for arcane energy shields/cannons/bombs/curses
    - Completing renditions of the above, in multiple areas, to advance an objective stage
  7. ARCHIVED-Olihin Guest

  8. ARCHIVED-Edgaard Guest

    We should just give up on pvp tbh
  9. ARCHIVED-YasikoSetsuna Guest

    - Restrict participation in warfields objectives to only players of that zone's tier.
    This would almost single handedly fix most of the problems we've been seeing recently, especially the latency.
    - AFKers profit from doing NOTHING w/ warfields automatically issuing rewards. These are dead-weight leechers that might negatively impact zone performance, existing due to this flaw in warfields implementation.
    Big problem. Getting 'something' for doing 'nothing' is automatically a broken system. It's already stated in Seliri's post, but remove all immunity. Having immunity in an open world pvp zone is stupid, go to your city/guild hall if you need a break - that's what our 2 calls are for. You should get 1 minute of immunity after rezzing, and 30 seconds after evaccing.
    - PvP writs completed during active warfields should reward double tokens. THIS would put the focus back on open world PvP & organization.
    I dunno about double, they already give too many. Making pvp gear any easier to get is a bad thing, in my book. It would surely encourage people to get out and kill during the warfields, but the consequences would be too high IMO.
    - Warfields victors should be given their choice of: etc...
    This is a great idea, AS LONG AS something is done to help stabilize the populations (and tiered warfields are implemented, preferably...) As much as I'd love to see every Q ever running around with some crazy buff, this would have to come in much later.
    Also, the reward, obviously, should ONLY work in PvP combat, and should only give desirable PvP based effects. I dont really like the idea of awarding bonus experience, or stuff that will affect PvE. Gear unadorning or unattuning is an interesting idea, though.
    -Is it understood that warfields instancing is broken, in that players can enter whichever instance their groupmate is in, even if it reads as "full" to ungrouped players?
    Just remove the ability to 'go to groupmember' when in a warfield zone. Simple as that. Put a cap of 50 freeport players, and 50 qeynos players in each warfield zone. Not a cap of 100 total, which is a big problem currently. A billion Q's zone in, and only 10-15 freeps are in zone when it locks.
    A. Why is there a delay in introducing the old fame/infamy/notoriety system?
    QFE. No one likes this new fame system. Bring back the old system exactly as it was, no clue why it was ever removed in the first place.
    B. Open betrayal ABSENT SPELL LOSS according to the relative tier/faction imbalance.
    Best idea on this whole list of suggestions. Let a set amount of players (based on current population) each week betray over penalty free - I guaruntee plenty would do it.
    - Remove permanent immunity from all overland zones aside from the Dropship Landing in Moors of Ykesha, Paineel in Sundered Frontier, & Moonfield Hamlet in Stonebrunt Highlands.
    As I stated above, immunity is dumb. So +1.
    - Evacuating would also NOT give you permanent immunity, but an invulnerability timer of 30 sec.
    Again, as I stated above, +1. With the addition of 1 minute immunity after rezzing.
    B. Items w/ "This effect can only trigger once every 60 seconds" are currently NOT procing AT ALL.
    Are you sure? I dont think it's all of them, my 1/min pvp reflect works fine.
    Just picked out what I thought were the most solid/easy to implement suggestions, don't feel like listing out everything I agree with, because most of it is good stuff.
    Major +1 in general.
  10. ARCHIVED-EndevorX Guest

    YasikoSetsuna wrote:
    As is custom for me in my efforts to vie for due redress, I've been broadcasting for players to review and post their perspective herein. I've received accolades from Elvy/Hashashin/Espinage/Tooled/Natthan/Nabygangzsta/Xawni/Morticai/Handek/Doubonk (Beefie), but they haven't yet "publicly" presented such points of view beyond private messages, in-game.
    Worries that I think have plagued the morale of the playerbase, PRIMARILY, is that you, the developers/producers/administrators, won't take the appropriate steps to offer passive incentives for promoting faction balance. If such is never done, warfields will never reach the widespread popularity, success, or acclaim that they could've.
    This is a problem that demands addressing, for the sake of quality gameplay. ;D

    And for those of you who are letting yourselves get demoralized in hearing Smokejumper say that "PvP is not our focus at the moment", consider the two following posts prior to allowing yourself to get totally jaded.
    SmokeJumper wrote in Re:Contested Need to Go:
    Whether Nagafen is included in the hardware upgrades, who knows, but hopefully some more information is going to be released.
    SmokeJumper wrote in Re:Lets talk about this...:
    Simply highlighting the more significant portion of what was said, though this wasn't originally colored red! ehehe.
  11. ARCHIVED-Olihin Guest

    Good thread and I appreciate the time taken to type all these points out.
    I am sure that this will cover some of the topics that some of you thought to bring up on the Fan Faire panel.
  12. ARCHIVED-goose1123 Guest

    I think with all this focus on warfields, we are losing sight of what was the strong point of eq2 pvp, and that is simple group vs group fights. Until we return to having good solid group vs group pvp, it does not matter what new objectives get put in and what your reward is for achieving them. Until the mechanics of pvp get righted, everything that gets introduced will be a shortlived fad and a simple means to an end (gear). All that is wrong with warfields is simply a sympton of the bigger problem. If we focus on the root of the problem, instead of the symptons, we can actually fix pvp instead of merely slowing its death.
    I am going to focus on a few of the changes that where made that had a longterm negative effect on pvp. In no particular order they are: Immunity, Fame, Writs, Travel, and Damage Nerfs.
    1. Immunity. It needs to go. 30 seconds post zoning immunity is fine. Perma-immunity outside of a city is not. There is nothing perma-immunity contributes to pvp that makes pvp better. This change was made a long time ago, and it didn't seem as large of a change then as it is now.
    2. Fame. Particularly fame lose on death. Some hate it. Some love it. Others don't care. I had mixed feelings about this before it was removed. If you where a person that loved it, it gave you something else to work for besides gear. This is a good thing. If you hated it, the only real effect it most likely had was making some people harder to catch and kill. This is one change that was made that really started the downward spiral. Death needs to suck. Removing the suck from dying leads to people not caring if they die. This is a big step towards a mass revive zerg.
    3. Writs. With the introduction of the writ system came a system where mass amounts of people all got rewards for killing one person. This was a major step downward for pvp. Combined with the removal of fame lose, the 'glory days' of pvp ended here. These where put in because people complained about scouts having the upper hand soloing for their token drops. What was not predicted however, is what happens when you remove the reward for solo classes soloing for their pvp gear. When this is reward is removed, it is another push towards 'the zerg'. Rewards need to be equivalent to the effort and risk involved in getting them.
    I would propose a return to a faction based system. Kills would give faction, death and the purchase of gear/rewards would lower your faction. I think a system like this is far more beneficial than a writ/token based system. The amount of faction gained is related to the number of players engaged with your target. If you kill someone that 12 other people are also engaged with, the amount of faction you gain will be rather small compared to a 1 vs 1 fight. This change alone should help dissipate the mass zerg for gear.
    4. Travel. Particularly guild banners. This is a change that was put in to make it easier and quicker to get around the world. The problem with this is it also removes players from the open world. A large amount of pvp used to occur between 2 groups headed to their respective instance or dungeon. There is no longer any controlling of zones done. There is no longer a need to wait until your entire group is ready before you head out to the zone. Guild banners need to go.
    5. Damage. Damage reduction is through the roof. All classes can stand up to more than what they should. A major culprit of this is toughness. I propose the removal of toughness and the return of crit mit being universal.
    One last thing that is hurting the state of pvp is the forced seperation of the two parts of this game: PvP and PvE. EQ2 is made up of these two parts (on our server). These two parts need to coexist. The major problem with PvP gear being effective in PvE was in how easy and thoughtless it has become to get. Make it take effort to get again, and let both styles of gear be again used universally. As it is now, PvE gear is not near as effective in PvP due to the lack of toughness. This removes some of the benefit of achieving this gear. On the other hand, the PvP gear is less than desirable for PvE and completely useless for raids. The two sides of our game need to support each other. As it is now, players start to lose interest in one or the other, and that is when the game starts to get dull.
    Anyway, those are my views. Warfields could be great fun, but they are not what will fix this game. We need to go back to the roots of PvP and fix that. Until we fix the roots, everything else we try to fix will be ineffective in the long run.
  13. ARCHIVED-Nemas Ravenor Guest

    Thinwizzy@Nagafen wrote:
  14. ARCHIVED-EndevorX Guest

    I don't mean to be territorial and parse every post, I simply intend to hone in on the most relevant priorities for the PvP paradigm in EQII. I think the answers we come to will be a result of consensus, and a general focus on the dilemma of the whole, as opposed to some.
    Thinwizzy@Nagafen wrote:
    Also, Nemas Ravenor, I agree with suggesting the styling of the next expansion, as if you see in my 3rd post in this thread I've quoted a past post of mine supporting "Hardline Open World PvP Stimulus".
    If I was the decider, I would completely abolish all solo group instances and make them contested dungeons on timers, but, I don't think that's a realistic suggestion given the casual playstyle that must be placated for the sake of sales.
    At the very minimum, I think, all instances should have a contested version scaled to applicable tiers, and there should also be more expansive, contested dungeons with challenging named, ring spawns, and all the bells and whistles, coupled with DESIRABLE equipment as rare drops.
    I do, however, think that it's completely unrealistic to expect them to abolish PvP gear and make it battlegrounds only, especially with all the precedents set (i.e. see Nemas Ravenor's post "PVE Suggestions to help PVP in next expansion").
  15. ARCHIVED-goose1123 Guest

    Seliri@Nagafen wrote:
  16. ARCHIVED-EndevorX Guest

    Ugh. The dreaded quotations of point-by-point commentary! Ehehehe. =]
    Thinwizzy@Nagafen wrote:
    And you had the audacity to include my typo on lossed! lmao.
  17. ARCHIVED-goose1123 Guest

  18. ARCHIVED-Neskonlith Guest

    Anyone else tickled by the thought of a Dev taking the suggestions of an infamous chat troll and previously deleted exploiter seriously?
    Maybe it is time that SOE allows free transfers off Lagafen before making changes that remove game content access and enable new forms of exploitation.
  19. ARCHIVED-EndevorX Guest

    Neskonlith wrote:
    Because you would like to demonize me and portray me as a troll, it simply must be so?
    Why not consider yourself a troll and concern yourself with confronting that, when here, you've stifled your capability for constructive contribution insofar?

    Instead of vaguely saying what changes are going to "remove game content access" and "enable new forms of exploitation", why not specifically address what modifications might lead to such?

    If you have sincere thoughts on the issues I've addressed, by all means, express them, but to try and haze my credibility as though making a mistake at one point renders my voice unworthy, it's beyond hypocritical and contradictive.
    In order to take such a stance in bias against me, you yourself would've had to never lied, cheated, or stolen, to rebuff the idea that moral exploitations debase the credibility of a person's point of view on troublesome, current affairs.

    If you truly think you aren't trolling here, then you will refrain from accusations and restrict comments to the identified matters, or clearly suggest what you think the complications presently are.

    @Thinwizzy: I'll respond later on to what you've said, just gotta do some stuff prior to! =] I don't think we need paint one another as attacking the other's perspective, as I do believe carrying a conciliatory conversation is something that has mostly been done.
  20. ARCHIVED-Neskonlith Guest

    Seliri@Nagafen wrote:
    Seliri@Nagafen wrote in Re:GU56 Changes and You!:
    Easy exploit? Chain-invade contested instances one after another, ganking players while they are tied up on pulls and steal their names to prevent them from progressing. This would also allow unrestricted access to names for fabled farming after griefing players into abandoning the instance.
    While this sounds amusing in theory if you play the role of farmer of undergeared noobs, in practice it is very likely to fail to improve the amount and quality of open-pvp. Considering SOE's long history of emergency fixes, of adding band-aid rules and restrictions - it is highly likely that such a concept would end up with "contested" instances being left with gaping loopholes easy to cheat just like the "Warfields" currently have.
    Any acceptable solution for improving the pvp game does not attempt to ruin and delete content from the pve portion of EQ2 to make the broke-pvp better in comparison, but instead encourages players to willingly participate in open-pvp while minimizing the game-breaking lag.
    Currently, the Lagafen server cannot accommodate a moderate amount of players participating in open-pvp without severe lag spoiling the experience for many.

Share This Page