Open world PVP - SOLUTION :)

Game Feedback Game Feedback
1

A solution for the PVP servers people have been asking for lately:

There were several games with open pvp, where you could ONLY ATTACK players in your level range. That would work in NW as well.
E.G. Level 1-15 = no pvp
Level 16 can be attacked by lvl 25 max.
Level 25 can pvp with lvl 16 to lvl 32
etc.

These level ranges are usually capped on serious power spikes, etc. and overall balanced so all players stand a chance against each other.
There’s gear level, skill level, and then there’s player’s skill, so there are 3 major factors that determine who wins the fight.
There are also minor factors to take into consideration as well: luck, lag, etc. So even an unskilled player could win against a skilled one who is lagging, or fatfingered his combo and used up all his stamina at the same time.

This keeps lvl 60s from killing lvl 5s and gives people the choice to engage in pvp wherever they are in the world, overall balancing everything out.
Cities, soul shrines should, of course, remain “sanctuaries”.

This would create some open world wars in the beginning, because what do you do when you get attacked by someone? You go and ask your guild for help, so chaos is guaranteed for the first few days/weeks. Then the map should become more cleaned up faction wise(if you want to avoid pvp, you stay in zones controlled by your faction), the game would become overall more intriguing and engaging.

I also recommend another free server transfer if/when this gets implemented, so people can choose to stay on their PVE servers or move to a more engaging PVP world.

It’s a simple solution overall, it worked in previous games so I don’t see why it wouldn’t work in New World.
Especially when it was designed as a PVP game, and most people have “finished” the questline, and fully geared up, so there’s no PVE content left for them. And PVP, maybe daily wars if they get lucky to get picked on the roster, or Outpost Rush that gets too boring too fast.

6 Likes
2

Or just make pvp scaling work properly.

2 Likes
3

PvP scaling is not a final solution tbh.

Why?
Because lvl 60s want pvp to scale based on their progress (GS, perks, etc.) and they have every right to wish for this.

Low/mid level players want to quest in peace.
They don’t want lvl 60s with previous PVP experience to “outplay” them while they’re questing.

So a solo lvl 32 player who’s running his casual quests, or he’s just gathering can only be attacked by other players in his level range and outside his faction. So he’s not gonna be oneshotted at that level, he has a chance to run away and disengage, or fight and win/lose. But it’s a choice! And people want to be able to make that choice.

2 Likes
4

You can learn a lot by losing to higher skilled players.

5

but not if they 1hit u…

3 Likes
6

You seem to be under the impression that the reason some people don’t wish to play PvP all the time is because they lose or are outgeared. The actual reason is that not everyone enjoys PvP all the time. Whether you win or lose or why doesn’t really matter. I don’t really see how your proposal addresses that issue.

I also disagree with framing this as a “choice to engage in PvP anywhere”. A different way of putting it would be that other people can now take this choice away from you. One of the most vital things you need to understand about literally any human interaction ever is that “consent matters”. There is a fundamental difference between fighting and killing someone who accepted the terms of combat- and doing the same to someone who just wants to be left alone. Forcing people to flag for PvP would not make “PvE-players” flag up, it would just make them leave the game. Everyone who actually wants to play PvP can already do so. It’s just that most people, most of the time, do not want to.

This game was once intended as a pure PvP-game. This changed because developers wanted to appeal to a larger crowd. Of course they could choose to revert those changes. But it would mean losing all of those additional players. Some people on this forum would argue that, for them, the remaining game with the PvP-focus restored would actually be more fun. And it very possibly might be, in a lot of ways it sounds like it could be a fun and dynamic game. But it would mean sacrificing player agency and most of the playerbase to satisfy a minority. Which is…not great, especially not if you are a development studio and want to make money.

5 Likes
7

PVP servers are only for people who know the risks and wish to PVP full time in the open world.
The PVP level cap I suggested would only give everyone a chance to fight or escape an undesired fight - both taking a certain amount of skill and/or luck to succeed, and would make the PVP more enjoyable. I wouldn’t enjoy getting 1shot while leveling, by lvl 60s with max gear. You wouldn’t either.

Most MMOs have PVP servers where everyone is flagged, and PVE servers where you flag and engage in PVP whenever you wish to do so.

I think you failed to understand that I did not suggest open PVP on every server, but on special servers where the most hardcore players can enjoy an entertaining in-game time.

Some people actually live for these kinds of challenges, so why not give them what they’re seeking for?
I’m talking about the “elite” - the most hardcore players that want something more than asking for “consent” every time.
Solo-gankers, gank squads, counter-gank squads, stalkers, etc. outplaying a squad, missleading them, killing someone who pissed you off over and over again, all kinds of fun!

You probably missed the context which I just edited into the OP which is: I’m talking about opening a few PVP servers, which people were talking about lately. Thought it was obvious, my bad.

Edited to remove double post.

9

Yeah learning how to die in 1 shot. So much educational…

2 Likes
10

Well yeah I support pvp scaling so that low levels don’t die fast.

11

make only open world pvp and remove outpost rush and 50 vs 50 wars,make all be fought in the open

1 Like
12

I did indeed create my post before you added your clarification. I don’t think that either pure PvP servers, nor level restrictions on those servers are a bad idea.

2 Likes
13

It’s too late for PVP. That part of the game has already died.

14

Yeah they could basically just copy stuff from outpost rush and put it in the open world for anyone to join in on.

Its weird we can’t even use siege weapons inside the forts (only during a war).

1 Like
15

So OP, if I got it right your idea is basically turn all servers into pvp and create a pve only server? That doesn’t seem right since the majority of the community are pve players. Should be easier for you to ask a pvp only server with some flavors.

2 Likes
16

Nice trolling.

17

They could simply create a dedicated pvp zone with each faction having its own outpost, zone questline, and repeatable quests with some overlap. I don’t think a pvp server would work so well because everyone departs from the same outpost and respawns at the same outpost on death. If the respawn shrines(or transportation shrines) were also faction specific in said zone then killing someone in your own faction’s territory would kick them back into their own territory or neutral territory.

2 Likes
18

this doesnt work because low levels would basically get pvp missions done for free

19

This definitely needs to happen if you don’t want people to be chain killed on spawn, yeah.
Also faction representatives could each be placed on a different side of the city, at a different city exit to encourage people to use that exit, have some faction NPC Guards defend players in city range, a 2 minute PVP protection timer when exiting major cities and so on.
It needs some work, but it can be done.

20

PVP quests are only useful on a PVE server, because you force people to flag for them.
But on a PVP server you’re perma-flagged, so I don’t understand the concern.
It’s not like they wouldn’t face a pvp challenge, or faction quest grind would be any less boring at lower levels.

21

If low level players cant be killed by 60s its exploitable and towns will easily be put into conflict