A restrictive slaughter may increase the flow of blood.

[raynes]

There is a very simple solution and one that would get EVERYONE to do pvp. Have an event every Saturday where the majority of the Nevrax staff (certainly all of the devs) and people running the game sign on in a pvp area and go to battle with all the players. You have them go to a different server each week.

This would accomplish so many things.

1) It would show that the devs actually play the game and play it with the subscribers at that.
2) It would give all of the pissed off players a chance to beat their frustration over bugs and such on the devs.
3) It would give the devs a chance to beat the hell out of the players that annoy them by complaining too much (and I would suspect I would be a dead man lol).
4) It would let the devs see how pvp is working in a live environment.
5) Most of all it would just give players something to look forward to each month.

[vinnyq]

Beat the Devs day! woohoo!

(or for the devs: Beat the whiney Players day! woohoo!)

I am all for it

[tetra]

It was an idea that's all. I wasn't stamping my foot and whining about what must be done. Not like some people do about ranged.

I assume you are refering to me, and many other folks, saying that your earlier ideas about ranged were a bunch of things that would hurt the skill... when your ideas would have caused a bunch of problems and made the skill dramatically worse, then yes... I suppose I did point out that your idea was crap. However I've never said that ranged needed to be fixed how I've suggested, only that ranged absolutely must be fixed due to it's complete lack of viability and provided various suggestions would help it. But yes, I have said that some "ideas" people have posted were crap because said ideas hurt the skill and could only be suggested if someone had not thought about what the changes would do before posting that particular "idea". I'm done with this little derailment though and assume that if you or anyone else wants to attack me about ranged fighting, that someone will start a new thread.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what you stance is. I mean...we should be encouraged to behave in a pvp area?

If behaving in a PvP area where PvP is non-existant, this means increasing the amount of PK and therefore incentive to force people to be our victims right isn't it? If that's your point I wholeheartedly agree.

I think some of you might be confused. I assumed this would be realized and it really wasn't.

-If in a Q50 zone <50 may agro anyone meaning up to level 250.

Like most of my ideas I find a major flaw though. just found this one. what if I agro Tetra with my Q35 guns vs his 150 ( I'm only 130 , not 150 yet) . Then I switch to my elem and blast him when he agroes back?

I said restrictions aren't really the answer, I didn't say they isn't a part of the answer. Balance is the most difficult thing to do in any game and involves all aspects.

Basically I don't want them to change PvP regions as far as location. They're fine where they are. The problem is that when I want to go PvP I have to hope that the region's other two residents aren't 3km away through heaps of agro that I can't handle, alone, or quickly in a small group before they leave.
Nor do I get anything out of taking the risk of fighting someone or being in a situation where I can be attacked myself.

You find that there is nobody there in PvP areas for the same reason that many of the folks blasting the originall PvP implementation were blasting it. Nobody goes out of their way to be a victim, for the simple reason that nobody wants to be a victim. If you look at pretty much every successful and non population canabalizing PvP implementation in MMO's and similar games (i.e. muds), you will notice a few things that are almost always present.

• It's not forced, people can reasonably go out and enjoy the game without someone coming in and slaying them in the middle of their evening.
• There are penalties for starting trash, it doesn't matter if the penalty is the risk of going red* or the risk of having your physical property/holdings trashed, there is always a risk beyond "oooh they could stop doing what they were doing, track me down, and kill me".
• "Think about the concequences of your actions" is something that applies to both killer and victim, rather than just the victim in reference to "if you don't like it then don't go there." You don't randomly go out and talk **** to annoy people who want to be left alone, because you know doing too much of that will eventually make them gather up enough folks and decide to try breaking your stuff that you care about. When you want to PvP the "penalty" of having folks coming to PvP with you, is hardly a penalty at all... it's the desired outcome.
• People want to participate in it without the "benefit" being a requirement. AO and DAOC both have a system where a good chunk of the guilded players want to participate in RvR over relics, or PvP over land control areas/tara. It's something that is optional and the benefits are worth the reward, however the benefits themselves are not something that you must have in order to effectively participate in the game as whatever class of player you play. The stuff that Tara drops is nice, but it's not the end all be all absolute best, there is better stuff and stuff that fills the same uber role in different ways. Some of this other stuff is actually easier to get, some of it is harder to get. PvP'ing at tara is just one way of many to get good gear, folks do it because it's sometimes fun and they want to help their side.
• Acting like lawless psychopaths is a good way to have the people you keep pissing off, to come out with pitchforks and break or take your toys.
• There is no immunity from your actions as a PvP attacker, AC didn't have anything that folks could break, but if you attacked someone you couldn't go back to nonpvp for a number of in game hours

And then there are some things that continually fail time and time again.

• Making an area with no purpose other than to attract fodder for folks who want to kill them, is a sure fire way to piss people off and make an empty wasteland. Examples are some of the PvP areas in AC2 where you needed to say hello to a ganksquad to do some rather important quests. An even better example, is borg camp and BCBLBDA in AO. Borg camp went from populated and nonpvp, to a +PvP empty wasteland, and then back to a populated nonPvP area. BCBLBDA went from mostly not populated PvP gank spot, to an almost always populated nonpvp spot.
• Folks will be angry and dislike a system where they have no choice but to subject themselves to being a victim if they want to get decent stuff or progress after a certain point. There is a difference between folks saying "hmm... do I want one of those, or one of those" and folks saying "hmm... do I want to be a useful member of a group, or do I want to settle for being sub par and using this stuff that works."
• Players dislike things not being fixed or enhanced to keep up with the skill/weapon/player enhancements, that always happens as the game progresses, because it would hurt PvP.
• Players get downright enranged when PvM is nerfed or tedious aspects are added to it for the benefit of PvP.

*In UO when you killed a person you got a strike against you. Kill 5 people within a set period of time, and you go red for a little while. Go red 3 times in a set period of time and you stay red. When you are red, anyone can kill you and they get no penalty. If you are killed while you are red you get a penalty (statloss). Most folks tended to avoid going red if they could manage it.

[josephm]

It was an idea that's all. I wasn't stamping my foot and whining about what must be done. Not like some people do about ranged.

Actually this had nothing to do with anything I wrote. It was purely for the people who start threads over and over about things.

Btw Tetra way back in the day weren't you anti-pvp?

[tetra]

Btw Tetra way back in the day weren't you anti-pvp?

I did not agree with the halfassed rediculous pvp implementation being implemented, and argued against it while trying to point out how obviously bad it was. Nothing has changed and my point is still the same .

[josephm]

Well I'm not trying to get a complete PvP overhaul here. I also don't think that people aren't going into pvp because people aren't getting punished down there. I mean...that's a lot more masochistic than greed. Cuz all you want is for people to be punished ya know?
edit: *please raise your hand if your first thought going into a PvP zone is "Well this should be fun as long as whomever wins the fight gets shafted"*

As far as penalties, maybe lower fame for killing your own race or something...In the history I read that Zorai enslave Trykers (waste of good bbq imo) and well...everyone enslaves Trykers.

So a UO implementation wouldn't work out because it does not go with the storyline. + in UO and Lineage II you can take other people's stuff. You can't in Ryzom, so why implement as harsh/worse punishments?

[zonoli]

There is no PvP ------ It would appear that it's just not wanted. The system exists now, there's just no interest in it.

If you want to PvP, go do it. You'll see that nobody is there to contest you. Adding benefits to something that simply isn't wanted is just a way to fuel trolls and arguments. If we wanted PvP, there'd be a freeforall every night.

Creating any sytems/rewards seems to only force PvP (again) on people that (still) don't want it - by dangling baubles in front of us. There was an uproar when PvP was activated in PR, and crickets afterwards.

The developers should stop progressing what is already planned to beef up a unused aspect of the game? Does the complaint here boil down to nobody will PvP with you?

[vinnyq]

actually, pvp is wanted, but not in its current state.

I enjoy a challenge of "beating" a human opponent once in a while as oppose to beating mindless (relatively) computer opponent

[josephm]

zonoli if I didn't want PvP then why would I make this thread? Why would other people say it? Oh I guess we don't count. Just because things the box says don't work out perfectly doesn't mean they should ditch it.

If you don't want PvP fine. Just keep in mind this thread isn't about pvp or no pvp. It's a complaint about a low amount of pvp yes. Yes I can also get people down there to pvp with me. The same people over and over who are willing to make the trip for no rewarding aspect...and it gets old when there's not much to do but sling fireballs at each other.

I just have hopeful asperations that something can be done about it. What I propose actually lets people who don't want to PvP ie. you to walk around in open pvp areas with a lot less fear once at a given stage in the game. This allows you less pvp in what is currently and free for all area. I'm making omission to my original arguments for pvp in threads months back where i wanted everything free-for-all.

If the game has 20x the people I'd still be for FFA. Since it doesn't have the popyulation to make that fun, I feel that those areas need encouragement.

You must not go into roots much to not know that the only legitimate reward down there is supreme harvestable mats. Here's a hint, even PvE don't go down there because same level mobs have 3x the hp. In the 250 PR there are still patrols that would take a few groups to take out and they each have a 100m range.

Oh I thought about the flaw in my idea and this is what I came up with. What if people who had any combat skill above the Q cap of that region could not start combat...even with a lower skill? So I couldn't attack Tetra with my 35 gunz in a Q50 zone since I'm almost 200 elemental....

[zonoli]

zonoli if I didn't want PvP then why would I make this thread? Why would other people say it? Oh I guess we don't count. Just because things the box says don't work out perfectly doesn't mean they should ditch it.

Reread my post. That's not what I said. You HAVE PvP. It's in game, and available for anybody who wants to participate.

If you don't want PvP fine. Just keep in mind this thread isn't about pvp or no pvp. It's a complaint about a low amount of pvp yes.

Reread my post. Low interest in PvP=low amount.

Yes I can also get people down there to pvp with me. The same people over and over who are willing to make the trip for no rewarding aspect...and it gets old when there's not much to do but sling fireballs at each other.

Back to this whole low interest thing. Rewarding aspect: mats, and fun if it's your style of play. "If you build it, they will come." However, they may not want to PvP when they get there. "The same people over and over," exactly, how many zone crashes have we had because everybody wanted to PvP and influxed PR? You are baiscally saying, "Mommy, Little Timmy doesn't want to play with me. Can't you tell his mommy to make him play with me?" Bribing Little Timmy with some candy to come play would suck, right?

I just have hopeful asperations that something can be done about it. What I propose actually lets people who don't want to PvP ie. you to walk around in open pvp areas with a lot less fear once at a given stage in the game. This allows you less pvp in what is currently and free for all area. I'm making omission to my original arguments for pvp in threads months back where i wanted everything free-for-all.

I already have ZERO PvP. What changes can you make to the play that reduces ZERO? Adding safety checks still leaves me with zero, and does not up my interest level. Why take dev time and manhours away from bringing everything in to the game to activate and balance PvP?

If the game has 20x the people I'd still be for FFA. Since it doesn't have the popyulation to make that fun, I feel that those areas need encouragement.

Having 20x the people isn't going to change anything. What you would need is 20x the INTEREST in this style of PvP. If the player base isn't interested now, what's the point in changing to something they don't like? Most of the posts that I have seen have all been Pro-Outpost-style PvP. I cannot wait for Outposts to enter the game. I have never been Anti-PvP. I just don't think that hanging baubles and elitist trinkets in front of people is the answer. That is forcing PvP play, which, as back to my original point, obviously isn't that popular.