“PVP” missions suck

Game Feedback Game Feedback
1

Pushing Influence in a territory so that a faction can declare war, is the opposite of enjoyable. Here I will go over the main problems.

  1. It very rarely encourages open world pvp, which I assume was the reason behind these missions in the first place. But unless you’re on a high pop server or you’re pushing a major territory you are rarely met with pushback. Making “pvp” missions more of “pve” missions.
  2. It takes way too long to push. This is the main problem I have, because it can take 6+ hours sometimes even an insane amount of time, to get a 30 minute war 2 days after you finish. It just isn’t worth the time and the effort. Especially after you nerfed the rewards.
  3. Most missions are way too far from the settlement, and most fort/asset missions are on opposite sides of the territory. Making pushing territories like Weavers, Reekwater, Mourningdale, Ebonscale and more, incredibly time consuming. This is even worse when the fort is capped and you have to split between missions
  4. The missions themselves are just very unfun and unrewarding. Going to cap the fort takes too long, picking up chests and standing in a location is just time wasting, and overall the missions don’t give you enough rewards to have any reason to do them besides war.

Overall, the only people who have reasons to run these missions (pvpers) are very tired of running “pve” missions disguised as pvp missions. If you could scrap this type of declaring for wars altogether or at least make a huge increase on the speed in which a territory is pushed and the rewards you get, that would be much needed. As it is right now on my server many people don’t even want to push for wars anymore and as such many are just quitting the game.

2 Likes
2

the current faction missions are like trying to ingest a spoon full of talcum powder, dry and flavorless. therefore I propose a few gameplay modes that would pair well with the game and offer very entertaining functions to the game to contrast the current quests that someone was paid to design in a game focused around player vs player gameplay.

To set the parameters. the forts and tents are the primary focus of this idea is about the forts and tents. They should be be populated with 10 npc’s respective to the territories level that ally with the faction that currently controls the fort or tent. With some consideration I find the combination of 1 elite commander, 2 elite captains, 2 archers, 1 rifle-man, 2 sword and shield, 1 great axe, and 1 spear would be a well balanced defence for the NPC population at each structure.
A faction rep should be at the forts and tents for rapid mission deployment but fort and tent reps offer less than town reps to balance things out.
This opens up possibilities for further missions down the road

To gain control over the fort or tent instead of the 5 minute king of the hill gameplay which is currently being abused…, The faction that has the most pull in the territory control gets the fort and the faction with the second most control gets the tent.
Faction missions completed from the towns should offer more points to ensure a catch-up posibility for the third faction.

Dividing the missions into two categories.
groupers (missions that rally players together, they dont pay much but can be done in rapid succession) and… pullers (missions that pull players away from the forts and tents to stimulate a struggle, and they should pay more to discourage players form ignoring them)

THE CONVOY puller- team fortress two had an escort multiplayer mission where teams had to defend a cart and deliver it to its destination while the other team has to destroy it. I propose a multi caravan convoy that has to travel from the town to the fort or tent which would pull players away from the fort or tents for a certain amount of time. however the enemy faction has to destroy all 3 caravans to prevent a victory. one caravan should have a war horn, one should have a turret and one should have a cannon completely usable.

SABOTAGE grouper- in 3 minutes, teams have to defend the fort while the others have to attempt to tamper with the forts defenses. with visual smoking effects for the already affected equipment. total sabotage of all the equipment is required for victory while defending teams have to repair the equipment.

DEMORALIZE THE ENEMYgrouper- capture the flag between the fort and tent its been tried tested and has held its own for decades as a standard multiplayer pvp game type. and is still more fun than holding position over a spot for 1.5 mins.

DOUBLE AGENTpuller - intercept the defector, track and capture or eliminate the defector who is currently trying to flee the territory. take the intel carried by the defector and bring it back to your faction rep or take it to the enemy’s faction rep for no faction points but an increased monetary gain.

SPECIAL DELIVERYgrouper - deliver a caravan loaded with explosives to the enemy’s fort or tent players must physically push the caravan and defend it to succeed.

ASSASSINATE THE COMMANDERgrouper - kill the commander stealth optional.

SUBTERFUGE grouper - deliver the fake orders to the corrupt faction rep without being detected by the guards.
Optional puller kill a messenger last reportedly seen in-between the town and the seige, take his letter and deliver it to us for a bonus.

FOOT PAD puller - circuit race, run and deliver a note to 4 destinations within the timer to receive a reward.

KING OF THE HILL grouper Hold the middle ground for a collective time of 10 minutes (one man holding position is 20 minutes, two men holding position is 10 minutes, 3 men holding position for 6.66 minutes, 4 men holding position for 5 minutes) and time doesnt reset upon death

2 Likes
3

Here are two posts ive done about this.

1 Like
4

This is very interesting and adds to my post I made about tents.

1 Like
5

link it man Im interested

6

i fail to see any benefit towards removing companies and factions. is there some more context or are you referring to big company lockout where companies(clans) would enterprise on bullying players out of playing faction wars to get more control over the server? because there are otherways of dealing with those instances.

1 Like
7

No factions would be removed. Companies would stay the same. It would add more compitition for those areas.

8

So let’s say there are micro companies that just want to be a small company and are happy just being part of a bigger conglomerate. Are those micro companies still viable in your ideal game world or has that been considered? Because I can only think that those companies would be just steam rolled by the biggest companies.

9

This topic was automatically closed 21 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.