Diamaht wrote: » As to wars being the primary method to declare player conflict, nothing promotes zergs more. Who, besides the largest and most organized player organizations, will be declaring wars? High player count orgs will use the war system to exert their will on everyone else. The only opportunity you will have to hit back will be when they declare war on you. That will always be on their terms. Fantasies about Robin Hood or the little guy striking back in areas that punish spontaneous pvp are just fantasies.
Dygz wrote: » Alpha 2 is for testing; not playing, so… Whatever PvP isn’t an issue during testing. 👍🏾
Renathras wrote: » But the most dangerous space in the game was LowSec 0.1-0.5 space. Little police response but the transition from HiSec to Nullsec, so pirates were everywhere and it was often total chaos and the most dangerous systems to travel through. I think of this sort of thing like THAT, and typically, those were the places very few people went. The only reason people went there was they had to pass THROUGH there, and in the end, that makes those spaces only for the most niche of the most niche of players.
ariatras wrote: » Why a PvP-Enabled Zone with Higher Rewards Might Be a Bad Idea While the idea of introducing a zone with PvP enabled for everyone and offering higher rewards might sound exciting, it can have several unintended consequences that could negatively impact the overall player experience and game balance.
ariatras wrote: » 1. Player Retention and Engagement: Forcing all players into a PvP environment to access higher rewards can alienate a significant portion of the player base that prefers cooperative or solo play. Players who are not interested in PvP may feel excluded from accessing these rewards, leading to frustration and potentially causing them to disengage from the game.
ariatras wrote: » 2. Community Dynamics: Mandatory PvP zones can foster a toxic environment where aggressive players dominate, discouraging casual or less skilled players from participating. This could lead to a divide within the community, creating an atmosphere where only the most competitive players thrive, which may harm the inclusive nature of the game.
ariatras wrote: » 3. Game Balance and Fairness: Higher rewards in a PvP-enabled zone can disrupt the balance of the game. Players who excel in PvP may accumulate these rewards at a faster rate, creating a disparity between them and other players. This could lead to an imbalance in power, making it difficult for new or less experienced players to compete, further widening the gap between different segments of the player base.
ariatras wrote: » 4. Content Accessibility: Designing content that is accessible only through PvP can limit the diversity of gameplay experiences. Players who enjoy PvE content might feel compelled to participate in PvP against their preference, reducing their enjoyment of the game. This forced participation can result in a negative perception of the game’s design and content accessibility.
ariatras wrote: » In summary, while a PvP-enabled zone with higher rewards might seem like an exciting challenge, it risks alienating a portion of the player base, disrupting community harmony, and creating imbalances that could undermine the long-term success of the game. A more balanced approach that caters to diverse playstyles would likely result in a healthier and more engaged player community.
hleV wrote: » I wouldn't be opposed to a lawless area or two staying there for the live game, open sea PvP might get stale.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » As to wars being the primary method to declare player conflict, nothing promotes zergs more. Who, besides the largest and most organized player organizations, will be declaring wars? Which is exactly why I said that GWs gotta be balanced well to account for this exact situation. Multiwars should be super expensive. High power difference wars should be also super expensive. Stuff like this makes it harder for huge zerg guilds to simply dominate the game. Obviously it's still possible, but it's at least harder. Lawless zones literally gives them top content on a platter and says "kill everyone you see with 0 penalty and have this best content in the game for free". If a zerg guild wardecced an enemy to have the ability to defend a location from said enemy - they'd be presented with a choice: do they defend the location but potentially lose the war (cause the enemy can go do the war objective) or do they go do the objective but potentially miss a boss respawn window or smth along those lines. And any zerg guild that tries to go for the corruption route of fighting their enemies would get fucked over by that very corruption. None of this would be the case with a lawless system. Why even fucking have a corruption system, if you gonna just put all the best content in a ffa pvp zone. Diamaht wrote: » Fantasies about Robin Hood or the little guy striking back in areas that punish spontaneous pvp are just fantasies The spontaneity is the problem. Spontaneus pvp doesn't have any meaning behind it. Any fights for bosses or location will not be spontaneous. They'll be calculated way ahead of time and planned for (mainly cause there's no fast travel, so big groups will have to move their forces way ahead of time). Also, I wasn't saying that small guilds will suddenly win just because they're small. I expect small guilds to band together and work in coordination with each other. GWs would simply help with that, because they create a choice, rather than just making it a "hold this location and you'll win" situation.
Diamaht wrote: » As to wars being the primary method to declare player conflict, nothing promotes zergs more. Who, besides the largest and most organized player organizations, will be declaring wars?
Diamaht wrote: » Fantasies about Robin Hood or the little guy striking back in areas that punish spontaneous pvp are just fantasies
Arya_Yeshe wrote: » Renathras wrote: » But the most dangerous space in the game was LowSec 0.1-0.5 space. Little police response but the transition from HiSec to Nullsec, so pirates were everywhere and it was often total chaos and the most dangerous systems to travel through. I think of this sort of thing like THAT, and typically, those were the places very few people went. The only reason people went there was they had to pass THROUGH there, and in the end, that makes those spaces only for the most niche of the most niche of players. That's where I live in EVE! More specifically, I live in the factional warfare warzone, right in the heart of the warzone specifically in the most central system. Nowadays even lowsec and highec can become lawless due to the Havoc expansion mechanics, you can now deploy bubbles and bombs in lowsec; and in highsec CONCORD police doesn't come if your ship or station is being shot. Lowsec nowadays is full of people in the warzone and around it, many groups from nullsec and highec are going to fight and farm in lowsec, it's quite a revolution in the game and the content is simply celebrated by the players. The Lawless state is quite a huge thing now, you can even go to highsec and bash player structures without police interference and without even needing a war declaration. Lawless areas are fine and huge groups go fight huge groups for the lolz
Aszkalon wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I'll have to bring law back to the land so people don't jump dgyz XD I think People will jump Dygz only because they know him from the Forum and want to trigger him. (lol) He can avoid it by intentionally making a very different Character Name from his Forum Name. Then all the Dygz-Haters have to sigh in defeat and move on.
Mag7spy wrote: » I'll have to bring law back to the land so people don't jump dgyz XD
Aszkalon wrote: » Hutchy1989 wrote: » If you didn't catch in on stream, they announced that there will be lawless areas that will not be affected by Corruption. The greatest Nightmare of PvE-Players has arrived ... ... ... ... ... ( Manga Panel is from "Versus" )
Hutchy1989 wrote: » If you didn't catch in on stream, they announced that there will be lawless areas that will not be affected by Corruption.
Arya_Yeshe wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » As to wars being the primary method to declare player conflict, nothing promotes zergs more. Who, besides the largest and most organized player organizations, will be declaring wars? High player count orgs will use the war system to exert their will on everyone else. The only opportunity you will have to hit back will be when they declare war on you. That will always be on their terms. Fantasies about Robin Hood or the little guy striking back in areas that punish spontaneous pvp are just fantasies. I think everybody will declare wars on everybody if they can afford paying the fee, maybe the fee too add 300 players in a war should cost 300x so if you have three guilds with 100 players then you would still have to pay for the 300x. So a big guild with 300 players would pay 900x for declaring three different wars.
Hutchy1989 wrote: » If you didn't catch in on stream, they announced that there will be lawless areas that will not be affected by Corruption. They will be higher level areas and they will have caravan drop off point that will pay more. Just wondering what people thoughts about this.
Raetion wrote: » I personally don't mind the open seas being a lawless zone. But to have a land area that is Lawless and on top of that that this is the only area where the end game mobs are I do no agree with. I am aware that they are doing this for the current testing. But if they bring this on release it would be a major change to their game. And I would not support this change.
mfckingjoker wrote: » Raetion wrote: » I personally don't mind the open seas being a lawless zone. But to have a land area that is Lawless and on top of that that this is the only area where the end game mobs are I do no agree with. I am aware that they are doing this for the current testing. But if they bring this on release it would be a major change to their game. And I would not support this change. I think they want to see people's reactions first before they decide if they will bring it on release. I personally believe the majority won't like it so no need to worry, but for testing purposes I think it's a great addition in the alpha.
