PvP idea brainstorm

Couple of ideas for resolutions for PvP. Apologies on the notes I’m tired and it’s 2am. :slight_smile:

  1. Increase the incentives for players to PvP.
    Maybe better reward drops when in PvP mode?

  2. Dedicated Servers PvP only?

  3. Big battles Latency -
    Dedicated Server Instancing - switches players to a temporary instance that can handle heavy traffic.
    Lower the amount of players simultaneously fighting.

  4. Idea - Maybe have level locked PvP Battle Zones, for example Lv20-30, 30-40, 50-60. You could possibly make it so certain territories are level locked. Example 1-25 becomes 1-30 and boots people once they reach 31 to another territory.

Some people might not like these ideas but I thought I’d mention it.

1 Like

Im all for having more people PVP but…

  1. Drops dont increase fun in PVP, so people wont bother, it needs to be done for fun to have people do it
  2. This kills the game as it currently is, you dont need PVP servers but 2 seperate games instead
  3. Havent had an issue here, might be something locationwise, but should be looked at any way.
  4. Same as 2, the driver of this game is war. But only people interested in war are pushing to have wars, you need to push zones into conflict which already is PVP. Just need to get rid of levels, they are meaningless anyway.

Maybe a small increase in luck bonus for having the pvp flag on? +5% or so?

Also about pvp level locking. Leveraging existing systems and not changing too much. What if each territory the pvp flag could only be enabled if that player is within the recommended level requirements of the territory. This would also encourage seasoned players to have other characters that are lower level and less higher level players hunting lower levels.

First; congratulations you’ve just killed the territory control mechanics. No, locking out 60s who are part of a company that owns a territory and preventing them from being part of a defense is not at all a good idea. Second; no alts on same server/cluster so having a twink in their back pockets is not possible.

You cant have an alt on the same server.

get rid of pvp faction quests, they are stupid.

just make it so that the faction that holds the fort gathers influence, and everyminute a player is inside helping gathering influence, they get a small amount of rep/tokens.

Bingo. Make territory influence control point based. I’d even add a few smaller points to fight over to help break up zergs a bit and then move faction influence gain based on those points, rather than doing pve quests. Change the faction pvp missions to be things like “defend a control point for 5 minutes,” “kill x players,” “successfully capture a point.”

This would immediately make pvp more engaging and would be less frustrating to play. Some things would have to be balanced, I’m sure, but the way to make people pvp more is by making it more fun, not add pve incentives to make it yet another thing people feel they have to do even if they don’t want to.


incentives only lead to players avoiding everything that keeps them from profit from those incentives. So if you give better loot, every second spend fighting other players is lost loot. How is this going to improve pvp?? You only give incentive to players to avoid pvp while flagged!

You need more fun pvp gameplay-mechanics, like:
there are flag posts in every territory. Let pvp-players plant flags there, and the longer they can hold the flag there, the more influence they gain. This forces players to engage in pvp, and not avoid it.
This should be a very easy to implement mechanic.

That’s an interesting idea. Would probably need to limit it to certain areas that could probably be abused, but in theory a moving/random capture point is pretty cool.

You could enhance the Idea to connect pve and pvp gameplay:
Hold a Flagpost long enough for pve-players to build a watchtower for you.
For pve-players it could be a daily quest, to gather materials and build the watchtower, and it would trigger the pvp-quest, as soon as the pve-players have gathered the necessary materials. Then there is a timer, and when the timer runs out, the faction holding the respective flag pole gets the influence boost. (probably the idea needs some fine tuning :wink: )

without the ability for the PvEers to be killed, this is unbalanced game-play.

that’s why it’s two separate activities. It’s not about “can you build the watchtower, while fighting other players”, but who get’s to use the watchtower that is being build. You can’t convince pve-players to do the quest, if they have to flag for it.
See it as a way for pve and pvp to interact on a friendly basis. It’s an pvp-activity that pve-players can trigger for their pvp-friends. There might be a way to make pve-quests that pvp-players can trigger for pve-players.
Just little bits, where pve and pvp-players can have the feeling, that it’s good for the game to have the other ones, too. Sometimes i think it might be a good idea for the game, to show, that pve and pvp don’t have to be opposing play styles (you get the feeling, if you spend to much time in the forum :wink: )

the problem is you are trying to get the 2 together,

If i see people building a tower, I expect that I can kill them to stop them.

Merging pve and pvp doesn’t work. It’s becoming very obvious, this game needs to decide or make separate servers.

Would it be that much of a compromise, not being able to kill these poor workers, and instead just defending them from other pvp-players, so you get the influence boost, the build tower provides??

its an unbalanced system.

The problem we have these problems now is because they are trying to mix the 2.

There are “scouts” turning pvp off then following enemy teams and reporting on locations. The scouts are literally walking inside the group without any punishment.

What kind of fair gameplay is that?

OK, i tired to be nice, but now i just worry about your imagination:

  • A: pve-players do some pve-quest
  • B: said quest triggers a pvp-event
  • C: pvp-players get to play a pvp-event
  • D: everybody wins

It really is not that strange of an idea.

no need to get snarky.

I have a lot of bad ideas too.

Your is a bad idea.

Any gameplay mechanic where an enemy player can attack you or help attack you and you can’t do anything to them is a broken system.

Going to repost a comment I made in another thread.

  • Introduce different tiers of objectives, such as small outposts, smaller forts and supply camps
  • Make each objective require enemies to break in using siege. New siege should be implemented and defending siege should be balanced so a small outpost only has 1 or 2 siege defenses. Attackers can use rams and bombs to break open gates.
  • Require upgrading objectives and forts with supplies generated from supply camps. Add an escort mission to get said supply to the other objectives.
  • The more objectives an attacking force controls the more quickly their influence builds. Once the attackers own a certain number of objectives and reach at least 75% they can take the fort.
  • If they manage to take the fort then they jump to 100% immediately and whichever company contributes the most should get first dibs on declaring, if they decline keep moving down the list of contributions until someone declares.
  • Company influence contribution should be banked on a per territory basis so that smaller companies can eventually build up to declare first. Once you declare and go to war your banked influence resets.
  • Companies can choose to claim an objective they’ve captured and offer local area bonuses to allied faction members. Can be things like PvE bonuses or health bonuses.
  • PvP missions can now become more related to objectives and based around taking over or killing players, but no longer grant influence on their own.

Obviously these are my suggestions and opinions on the topic for what I would like to see as a PvP system. The banked influence is actually an AGS suggestion but apparently they didn’t like it despite it being much better than RNG decs, even if 10% is required that’s still multiple companies more often than not hoping to win a lottery for gameplay.

Fighting over objectives means you will be forced to PvP in order to gain progress, unlike the current mission system which promotes avoidance.

The only problem that comes up is zerging but if objectives are balanced per tier then smaller groups should be able to take smaller objectives and help out while larger groups band together for larger objectives. Zerging should be less of a problem with this system than it is now since objectives will be more spread out and different size groups will be better served hitting different objectives.

But that’s not the case, the way it is set up, building the tower and fighting over the tower are separate events, the only connection is, that there is no tower to fight over for pvp, if pve doesn’t do the quest to build it. In no way can one pvp-faction exploit anything against another, just because the pvp-event is triggered by a pve-quest.

I can’t stop them from building a tower. End of story.

Bad idea. Sorry it is. I have tons of them on a daily basis.