Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

silk

Testers
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    silk got a reaction from xaero in A Crow has Fallen - Coolwaters   
    One of the kindest, most noob friendly, thoughtful, and respectful people you could come across in game or out.  And yes, analytical to an extreme degree about almost any facet of a game he played.  He will be sorely missed. 
  2. Like
    silk got a reaction from Gradishar in A Crow has Fallen - Coolwaters   
    One of the kindest, most noob friendly, thoughtful, and respectful people you could come across in game or out.  And yes, analytical to an extreme degree about almost any facet of a game he played.  He will be sorely missed. 
  3. Like
    silk got a reaction from Cash in A Crow has Fallen - Coolwaters   
    One of the kindest, most noob friendly, thoughtful, and respectful people you could come across in game or out.  And yes, analytical to an extreme degree about almost any facet of a game he played.  He will be sorely missed. 
  4. Like
    silk got a reaction from JamesGoblin in A Crow has Fallen - Coolwaters   
    One of the kindest, most noob friendly, thoughtful, and respectful people you could come across in game or out.  And yes, analytical to an extreme degree about almost any facet of a game he played.  He will be sorely missed. 
  5. Like
    silk got a reaction from JamesGoblin in [-W-] Winterblades: Original thread   
    These threads seem a tad premature. . . . 
     
     
    Hi guys wait for me!
  6. Like
    silk got a reaction from Frykka in How To Ruin A Pvp Game. . . And Other Topics   
    PLEASE don't build a lovely pvp game and ruin it by creating incentives to avoid PVP.
     
     
    Seriously.  So many games (both those designed for PVP and those where it's an afterthought) have done this over the years.  
     
    I'll try to keep this short, but it likely won't be, apologies in advance.  Summary at the bottom.
     
    It all comes down to risk/reward.  A game has to be designed in such a way that in the majority of cases (not all), players have more to gain than to lose when engaging in pvp, especially in the small scale, more random encounter type.  If the opposite is true, for whatever reason, players will actively avoid fights unless they are assured of victory.  This very quickly leads to less fun, and declining populations, which is a nasty spiral.  
     
    For example, when repair costs in Shadowbane were lowered drastically, in combination with gold drops being slowly raised over time, you had a lot more people engaging in "random" fights, instead of running/recalling away, because there's always a chance to win, pvp is fun, and a death no longer meant 20 minutes of farming to pay off the repair cost.  
     
    In UO, if you were running around red looking for people to kill, you never wore your best stuff, until you had a lot of it, and usually a sizable pack of other players to run around with. You were much more likely to lose your GM poisoned Vanq katana (for instance) than you were to loot another one. 
     
     
    Again, I'm going with the assumption that we are looking at a full loot system in crowfall.  If I'm wrong and on death you just lost the contents of your backpack, much of what I'm saying will still hold, since it seems like resources will be much of what is at risk when people pvp.  
     
    If your equipment is at risk when you pvp, you must be able to cheaply and quickly replace it, and get back out to PVP more.  Further, the functional difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear needs to be quite small.  In a perfect world, the COST difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear is also correspondingly small.  If you are playing, and come upon a group of players 50% larger than you, you MUST NOT have the incentive to run away.  The design must be such that you say "lets give it a shot, we aren't sure, even likely to win, but if we do, it will be worth it".  If you lose, the design must be such that you say "lets re-arm real quick and go out and take another shot".  It must not be "Eh, we have no chance against their numbers, and I can't pay for another set of armor, we have no shot, I'm gonna log."  
     
    Likewise, if you are running around in "good" equipment, and come across an even sided fight with an opponent who has "the best" equipment, then you have to be able to say "we can totally take them, their gear doesn't give them that much of an advantage".  If they are 50% more powerful because they have better gear, and you have a very small chance of winning even if you play well, you are gonna run away, and the strong group is gonna get tired of people always running away from them.  Both groups of players will quickly get bored and quit.  
     
    Insert the same example for groups of higher and lower leveled characters, or with higher or lower levels of training, etc etc etc.  
     
    To create pvp, you must offer good rewards for the victor, along with a bigger target on their backs, while not punishing the losers.  There are all kinds of ways to do that.  You can offer a sliding curve for experience/currency/resource rewards, where guilds that are bigger are worth more, guilds with higher K/D ratios (or some other measure of effectiveness) are worth more.  If my group rolls into a zone and sees a group of some elite guild, a group of some newb guild, and a couple other groups in between, it should be worth it to go after the elite guild (and its rewarding the victors with more opportunities to fight).  
     
    To do this properly means abandoning the typical treadmills present in PVE MMOs.  You should NEVER have a huge leveling curve, or a huge equipment/gearing curve.  It should be fairly quick and easy to level, and to level alts (especially in a game that looks to have so much character diversity).  It should be quick and cheap to mas produce "good" gear for everyone, and even "the best" gear shouldn't cost you much more in time or resources.  Make it fairly painless for players to have many fully leveled and FULLY GEARED characters.  This will only enhance the pvp spec variety and keep people interested in your game.  Do this right and you create a game that is accessible to both casual players and hardcore players, by taking the "grindy" aspects off the players and putting them on the shoulders of the guilds.  
     
    The "treadmill" has to move to the territory/city/conquest side.  If you keep the difference between "good" and "best" gear/trainers/buffs/whatever small, then you can very easily tie "the best" things into building and ranking a city, and holding territory. Don't have a city?  Then your "good" stuff is still plenty good enough to compete with someone who has a fully ranked city and can make "the best" stuff, which is hopefully only 5-10% better.  Give the casual players with low amounts of playtime the ability to have a fully leveled and geared character, and be able to contribute in pvp by working within a guild.  Give the hardcore players the opportunity to level a dozen or more characters, experiment with them, try new tactics, explore new specs.  Doing this will make the barriers to entry low, keep population high, and keep the endgame meta dynamic fresh. 
     
     The city/territory side also has to have a careful balance.  The risk/reward should be higher here than anywhere else, but still not so high the losing a city is devastating to a guild.  City and territory conquest has to be accessible to the small guilds, while offering the large guilds rewards and bragging rights, and making them worth taking on by other guilds.  
     
     
    TL:DR
     
    Don't create reasons to avoid pvp, even when outnumbered or underleveled/geared.
     
    Re-equipping and getting back out to pvp should be cheap and easy.
     
    The combat effectiveness delta between low and high levels, gear, training should be kept very small.  
     
    Combat should be rewarding to the victors without punishing the losers.
     
    It should be fairly easy and fairly cheap for players to fully level and full gear many characters, in contrast to every other PVE MMO on the market.  
     
    The "treadmill" should be on the city/territory conquest side, should be player driven, and should be on the guild as a group, not on any individual, so that both casual and hardcore players have a reason to stay.  
     
    Risk/reward for territorial control should be higher than anywhere else, but not so high that loss of a city/territory leads people to stop playing.  
  7. Like
    silk got a reaction from headlight in Some Shadowbane reminiscing...   
    Vikingnail is a bot right?  Same 3 sentences, slightly different syntax, zero comprehension. Gotta be a bot, and not a very good one honestly.  Someone's freshman CS project?
     
    I'm with shad on this one, 30-50 sided fights were really the pinnacle of SB combat.  Enough for lots of interesting tactical options, not too many the servers caught on fire.  
     
    Though personally, I can't wait to play against these leet baddasses who think standing in a stack and casting AOEs on the enemy plus some heals on your group during minute long lag spikes in 300v300 banes on the OG servers was the pinnacle of skill in SB.  I'm betting they pack it off to some highly competitive (yet unnamed) PVE game in under 3 months.  
  8. Like
    silk reacted to Shadivak in Is it sad....   
    That I recognize like half the people posting on these forums from one server or another in SB? Thinking back, man, those were the days... Forumbane was almost as good as the game itself. The politics, the trash talking, the slander, the destruction, hatred, respect, contempt....wow. 
     
    That was a decade ago??? Unbelievable, really.
     
    I love you all. Until, of course, the day the game goes live and we're slaughtering each other.
  9. Like
    silk got a reaction from amaziah aryeh in Factions? Do We Really Want Them?   
    You should have MANY MANY factions.  2-3 isn't enough, 10-15 is more like it.  Guilds within the same faction should still be able to fight each other of course, but many functionally different factions with different strengths and weaknesses make for more varied pvp encounters and should be encouraged.
  10. Like
    silk got a reaction from Rorschach in Shadowbane has ruined MMORPGS for me   
    Id put winning a well fought def bane against a numerically superior foe a half step higher, but your point is well taken.  Nothing else comes close.
  11. Like
    silk got a reaction from 11nephilim in How To Ruin A Pvp Game. . . And Other Topics   
    PLEASE don't build a lovely pvp game and ruin it by creating incentives to avoid PVP.
     
     
    Seriously.  So many games (both those designed for PVP and those where it's an afterthought) have done this over the years.  
     
    I'll try to keep this short, but it likely won't be, apologies in advance.  Summary at the bottom.
     
    It all comes down to risk/reward.  A game has to be designed in such a way that in the majority of cases (not all), players have more to gain than to lose when engaging in pvp, especially in the small scale, more random encounter type.  If the opposite is true, for whatever reason, players will actively avoid fights unless they are assured of victory.  This very quickly leads to less fun, and declining populations, which is a nasty spiral.  
     
    For example, when repair costs in Shadowbane were lowered drastically, in combination with gold drops being slowly raised over time, you had a lot more people engaging in "random" fights, instead of running/recalling away, because there's always a chance to win, pvp is fun, and a death no longer meant 20 minutes of farming to pay off the repair cost.  
     
    In UO, if you were running around red looking for people to kill, you never wore your best stuff, until you had a lot of it, and usually a sizable pack of other players to run around with. You were much more likely to lose your GM poisoned Vanq katana (for instance) than you were to loot another one. 
     
     
    Again, I'm going with the assumption that we are looking at a full loot system in crowfall.  If I'm wrong and on death you just lost the contents of your backpack, much of what I'm saying will still hold, since it seems like resources will be much of what is at risk when people pvp.  
     
    If your equipment is at risk when you pvp, you must be able to cheaply and quickly replace it, and get back out to PVP more.  Further, the functional difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear needs to be quite small.  In a perfect world, the COST difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear is also correspondingly small.  If you are playing, and come upon a group of players 50% larger than you, you MUST NOT have the incentive to run away.  The design must be such that you say "lets give it a shot, we aren't sure, even likely to win, but if we do, it will be worth it".  If you lose, the design must be such that you say "lets re-arm real quick and go out and take another shot".  It must not be "Eh, we have no chance against their numbers, and I can't pay for another set of armor, we have no shot, I'm gonna log."  
     
    Likewise, if you are running around in "good" equipment, and come across an even sided fight with an opponent who has "the best" equipment, then you have to be able to say "we can totally take them, their gear doesn't give them that much of an advantage".  If they are 50% more powerful because they have better gear, and you have a very small chance of winning even if you play well, you are gonna run away, and the strong group is gonna get tired of people always running away from them.  Both groups of players will quickly get bored and quit.  
     
    Insert the same example for groups of higher and lower leveled characters, or with higher or lower levels of training, etc etc etc.  
     
    To create pvp, you must offer good rewards for the victor, along with a bigger target on their backs, while not punishing the losers.  There are all kinds of ways to do that.  You can offer a sliding curve for experience/currency/resource rewards, where guilds that are bigger are worth more, guilds with higher K/D ratios (or some other measure of effectiveness) are worth more.  If my group rolls into a zone and sees a group of some elite guild, a group of some newb guild, and a couple other groups in between, it should be worth it to go after the elite guild (and its rewarding the victors with more opportunities to fight).  
     
    To do this properly means abandoning the typical treadmills present in PVE MMOs.  You should NEVER have a huge leveling curve, or a huge equipment/gearing curve.  It should be fairly quick and easy to level, and to level alts (especially in a game that looks to have so much character diversity).  It should be quick and cheap to mas produce "good" gear for everyone, and even "the best" gear shouldn't cost you much more in time or resources.  Make it fairly painless for players to have many fully leveled and FULLY GEARED characters.  This will only enhance the pvp spec variety and keep people interested in your game.  Do this right and you create a game that is accessible to both casual players and hardcore players, by taking the "grindy" aspects off the players and putting them on the shoulders of the guilds.  
     
    The "treadmill" has to move to the territory/city/conquest side.  If you keep the difference between "good" and "best" gear/trainers/buffs/whatever small, then you can very easily tie "the best" things into building and ranking a city, and holding territory. Don't have a city?  Then your "good" stuff is still plenty good enough to compete with someone who has a fully ranked city and can make "the best" stuff, which is hopefully only 5-10% better.  Give the casual players with low amounts of playtime the ability to have a fully leveled and geared character, and be able to contribute in pvp by working within a guild.  Give the hardcore players the opportunity to level a dozen or more characters, experiment with them, try new tactics, explore new specs.  Doing this will make the barriers to entry low, keep population high, and keep the endgame meta dynamic fresh. 
     
     The city/territory side also has to have a careful balance.  The risk/reward should be higher here than anywhere else, but still not so high the losing a city is devastating to a guild.  City and territory conquest has to be accessible to the small guilds, while offering the large guilds rewards and bragging rights, and making them worth taking on by other guilds.  
     
     
    TL:DR
     
    Don't create reasons to avoid pvp, even when outnumbered or underleveled/geared.
     
    Re-equipping and getting back out to pvp should be cheap and easy.
     
    The combat effectiveness delta between low and high levels, gear, training should be kept very small.  
     
    Combat should be rewarding to the victors without punishing the losers.
     
    It should be fairly easy and fairly cheap for players to fully level and full gear many characters, in contrast to every other PVE MMO on the market.  
     
    The "treadmill" should be on the city/territory conquest side, should be player driven, and should be on the guild as a group, not on any individual, so that both casual and hardcore players have a reason to stay.  
     
    Risk/reward for territorial control should be higher than anywhere else, but not so high that loss of a city/territory leads people to stop playing.  
  12. Like
    silk got a reaction from JonathanCid in How To Ruin A Pvp Game. . . And Other Topics   
    PLEASE don't build a lovely pvp game and ruin it by creating incentives to avoid PVP.
     
     
    Seriously.  So many games (both those designed for PVP and those where it's an afterthought) have done this over the years.  
     
    I'll try to keep this short, but it likely won't be, apologies in advance.  Summary at the bottom.
     
    It all comes down to risk/reward.  A game has to be designed in such a way that in the majority of cases (not all), players have more to gain than to lose when engaging in pvp, especially in the small scale, more random encounter type.  If the opposite is true, for whatever reason, players will actively avoid fights unless they are assured of victory.  This very quickly leads to less fun, and declining populations, which is a nasty spiral.  
     
    For example, when repair costs in Shadowbane were lowered drastically, in combination with gold drops being slowly raised over time, you had a lot more people engaging in "random" fights, instead of running/recalling away, because there's always a chance to win, pvp is fun, and a death no longer meant 20 minutes of farming to pay off the repair cost.  
     
    In UO, if you were running around red looking for people to kill, you never wore your best stuff, until you had a lot of it, and usually a sizable pack of other players to run around with. You were much more likely to lose your GM poisoned Vanq katana (for instance) than you were to loot another one. 
     
     
    Again, I'm going with the assumption that we are looking at a full loot system in crowfall.  If I'm wrong and on death you just lost the contents of your backpack, much of what I'm saying will still hold, since it seems like resources will be much of what is at risk when people pvp.  
     
    If your equipment is at risk when you pvp, you must be able to cheaply and quickly replace it, and get back out to PVP more.  Further, the functional difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear needs to be quite small.  In a perfect world, the COST difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear is also correspondingly small.  If you are playing, and come upon a group of players 50% larger than you, you MUST NOT have the incentive to run away.  The design must be such that you say "lets give it a shot, we aren't sure, even likely to win, but if we do, it will be worth it".  If you lose, the design must be such that you say "lets re-arm real quick and go out and take another shot".  It must not be "Eh, we have no chance against their numbers, and I can't pay for another set of armor, we have no shot, I'm gonna log."  
     
    Likewise, if you are running around in "good" equipment, and come across an even sided fight with an opponent who has "the best" equipment, then you have to be able to say "we can totally take them, their gear doesn't give them that much of an advantage".  If they are 50% more powerful because they have better gear, and you have a very small chance of winning even if you play well, you are gonna run away, and the strong group is gonna get tired of people always running away from them.  Both groups of players will quickly get bored and quit.  
     
    Insert the same example for groups of higher and lower leveled characters, or with higher or lower levels of training, etc etc etc.  
     
    To create pvp, you must offer good rewards for the victor, along with a bigger target on their backs, while not punishing the losers.  There are all kinds of ways to do that.  You can offer a sliding curve for experience/currency/resource rewards, where guilds that are bigger are worth more, guilds with higher K/D ratios (or some other measure of effectiveness) are worth more.  If my group rolls into a zone and sees a group of some elite guild, a group of some newb guild, and a couple other groups in between, it should be worth it to go after the elite guild (and its rewarding the victors with more opportunities to fight).  
     
    To do this properly means abandoning the typical treadmills present in PVE MMOs.  You should NEVER have a huge leveling curve, or a huge equipment/gearing curve.  It should be fairly quick and easy to level, and to level alts (especially in a game that looks to have so much character diversity).  It should be quick and cheap to mas produce "good" gear for everyone, and even "the best" gear shouldn't cost you much more in time or resources.  Make it fairly painless for players to have many fully leveled and FULLY GEARED characters.  This will only enhance the pvp spec variety and keep people interested in your game.  Do this right and you create a game that is accessible to both casual players and hardcore players, by taking the "grindy" aspects off the players and putting them on the shoulders of the guilds.  
     
    The "treadmill" has to move to the territory/city/conquest side.  If you keep the difference between "good" and "best" gear/trainers/buffs/whatever small, then you can very easily tie "the best" things into building and ranking a city, and holding territory. Don't have a city?  Then your "good" stuff is still plenty good enough to compete with someone who has a fully ranked city and can make "the best" stuff, which is hopefully only 5-10% better.  Give the casual players with low amounts of playtime the ability to have a fully leveled and geared character, and be able to contribute in pvp by working within a guild.  Give the hardcore players the opportunity to level a dozen or more characters, experiment with them, try new tactics, explore new specs.  Doing this will make the barriers to entry low, keep population high, and keep the endgame meta dynamic fresh. 
     
     The city/territory side also has to have a careful balance.  The risk/reward should be higher here than anywhere else, but still not so high the losing a city is devastating to a guild.  City and territory conquest has to be accessible to the small guilds, while offering the large guilds rewards and bragging rights, and making them worth taking on by other guilds.  
     
     
    TL:DR
     
    Don't create reasons to avoid pvp, even when outnumbered or underleveled/geared.
     
    Re-equipping and getting back out to pvp should be cheap and easy.
     
    The combat effectiveness delta between low and high levels, gear, training should be kept very small.  
     
    Combat should be rewarding to the victors without punishing the losers.
     
    It should be fairly easy and fairly cheap for players to fully level and full gear many characters, in contrast to every other PVE MMO on the market.  
     
    The "treadmill" should be on the city/territory conquest side, should be player driven, and should be on the guild as a group, not on any individual, so that both casual and hardcore players have a reason to stay.  
     
    Risk/reward for territorial control should be higher than anywhere else, but not so high that loss of a city/territory leads people to stop playing.  
  13. Like
    silk got a reaction from SerOddgar in How To Ruin A Pvp Game. . . And Other Topics   
    PLEASE don't build a lovely pvp game and ruin it by creating incentives to avoid PVP.
     
     
    Seriously.  So many games (both those designed for PVP and those where it's an afterthought) have done this over the years.  
     
    I'll try to keep this short, but it likely won't be, apologies in advance.  Summary at the bottom.
     
    It all comes down to risk/reward.  A game has to be designed in such a way that in the majority of cases (not all), players have more to gain than to lose when engaging in pvp, especially in the small scale, more random encounter type.  If the opposite is true, for whatever reason, players will actively avoid fights unless they are assured of victory.  This very quickly leads to less fun, and declining populations, which is a nasty spiral.  
     
    For example, when repair costs in Shadowbane were lowered drastically, in combination with gold drops being slowly raised over time, you had a lot more people engaging in "random" fights, instead of running/recalling away, because there's always a chance to win, pvp is fun, and a death no longer meant 20 minutes of farming to pay off the repair cost.  
     
    In UO, if you were running around red looking for people to kill, you never wore your best stuff, until you had a lot of it, and usually a sizable pack of other players to run around with. You were much more likely to lose your GM poisoned Vanq katana (for instance) than you were to loot another one. 
     
     
    Again, I'm going with the assumption that we are looking at a full loot system in crowfall.  If I'm wrong and on death you just lost the contents of your backpack, much of what I'm saying will still hold, since it seems like resources will be much of what is at risk when people pvp.  
     
    If your equipment is at risk when you pvp, you must be able to cheaply and quickly replace it, and get back out to PVP more.  Further, the functional difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear needs to be quite small.  In a perfect world, the COST difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear is also correspondingly small.  If you are playing, and come upon a group of players 50% larger than you, you MUST NOT have the incentive to run away.  The design must be such that you say "lets give it a shot, we aren't sure, even likely to win, but if we do, it will be worth it".  If you lose, the design must be such that you say "lets re-arm real quick and go out and take another shot".  It must not be "Eh, we have no chance against their numbers, and I can't pay for another set of armor, we have no shot, I'm gonna log."  
     
    Likewise, if you are running around in "good" equipment, and come across an even sided fight with an opponent who has "the best" equipment, then you have to be able to say "we can totally take them, their gear doesn't give them that much of an advantage".  If they are 50% more powerful because they have better gear, and you have a very small chance of winning even if you play well, you are gonna run away, and the strong group is gonna get tired of people always running away from them.  Both groups of players will quickly get bored and quit.  
     
    Insert the same example for groups of higher and lower leveled characters, or with higher or lower levels of training, etc etc etc.  
     
    To create pvp, you must offer good rewards for the victor, along with a bigger target on their backs, while not punishing the losers.  There are all kinds of ways to do that.  You can offer a sliding curve for experience/currency/resource rewards, where guilds that are bigger are worth more, guilds with higher K/D ratios (or some other measure of effectiveness) are worth more.  If my group rolls into a zone and sees a group of some elite guild, a group of some newb guild, and a couple other groups in between, it should be worth it to go after the elite guild (and its rewarding the victors with more opportunities to fight).  
     
    To do this properly means abandoning the typical treadmills present in PVE MMOs.  You should NEVER have a huge leveling curve, or a huge equipment/gearing curve.  It should be fairly quick and easy to level, and to level alts (especially in a game that looks to have so much character diversity).  It should be quick and cheap to mas produce "good" gear for everyone, and even "the best" gear shouldn't cost you much more in time or resources.  Make it fairly painless for players to have many fully leveled and FULLY GEARED characters.  This will only enhance the pvp spec variety and keep people interested in your game.  Do this right and you create a game that is accessible to both casual players and hardcore players, by taking the "grindy" aspects off the players and putting them on the shoulders of the guilds.  
     
    The "treadmill" has to move to the territory/city/conquest side.  If you keep the difference between "good" and "best" gear/trainers/buffs/whatever small, then you can very easily tie "the best" things into building and ranking a city, and holding territory. Don't have a city?  Then your "good" stuff is still plenty good enough to compete with someone who has a fully ranked city and can make "the best" stuff, which is hopefully only 5-10% better.  Give the casual players with low amounts of playtime the ability to have a fully leveled and geared character, and be able to contribute in pvp by working within a guild.  Give the hardcore players the opportunity to level a dozen or more characters, experiment with them, try new tactics, explore new specs.  Doing this will make the barriers to entry low, keep population high, and keep the endgame meta dynamic fresh. 
     
     The city/territory side also has to have a careful balance.  The risk/reward should be higher here than anywhere else, but still not so high the losing a city is devastating to a guild.  City and territory conquest has to be accessible to the small guilds, while offering the large guilds rewards and bragging rights, and making them worth taking on by other guilds.  
     
     
    TL:DR
     
    Don't create reasons to avoid pvp, even when outnumbered or underleveled/geared.
     
    Re-equipping and getting back out to pvp should be cheap and easy.
     
    The combat effectiveness delta between low and high levels, gear, training should be kept very small.  
     
    Combat should be rewarding to the victors without punishing the losers.
     
    It should be fairly easy and fairly cheap for players to fully level and full gear many characters, in contrast to every other PVE MMO on the market.  
     
    The "treadmill" should be on the city/territory conquest side, should be player driven, and should be on the guild as a group, not on any individual, so that both casual and hardcore players have a reason to stay.  
     
    Risk/reward for territorial control should be higher than anywhere else, but not so high that loss of a city/territory leads people to stop playing.  
  14. Like
    silk got a reaction from eatitcold in How To Ruin A Pvp Game. . . And Other Topics   
    PLEASE don't build a lovely pvp game and ruin it by creating incentives to avoid PVP.
     
     
    Seriously.  So many games (both those designed for PVP and those where it's an afterthought) have done this over the years.  
     
    I'll try to keep this short, but it likely won't be, apologies in advance.  Summary at the bottom.
     
    It all comes down to risk/reward.  A game has to be designed in such a way that in the majority of cases (not all), players have more to gain than to lose when engaging in pvp, especially in the small scale, more random encounter type.  If the opposite is true, for whatever reason, players will actively avoid fights unless they are assured of victory.  This very quickly leads to less fun, and declining populations, which is a nasty spiral.  
     
    For example, when repair costs in Shadowbane were lowered drastically, in combination with gold drops being slowly raised over time, you had a lot more people engaging in "random" fights, instead of running/recalling away, because there's always a chance to win, pvp is fun, and a death no longer meant 20 minutes of farming to pay off the repair cost.  
     
    In UO, if you were running around red looking for people to kill, you never wore your best stuff, until you had a lot of it, and usually a sizable pack of other players to run around with. You were much more likely to lose your GM poisoned Vanq katana (for instance) than you were to loot another one. 
     
     
    Again, I'm going with the assumption that we are looking at a full loot system in crowfall.  If I'm wrong and on death you just lost the contents of your backpack, much of what I'm saying will still hold, since it seems like resources will be much of what is at risk when people pvp.  
     
    If your equipment is at risk when you pvp, you must be able to cheaply and quickly replace it, and get back out to PVP more.  Further, the functional difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear needs to be quite small.  In a perfect world, the COST difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear is also correspondingly small.  If you are playing, and come upon a group of players 50% larger than you, you MUST NOT have the incentive to run away.  The design must be such that you say "lets give it a shot, we aren't sure, even likely to win, but if we do, it will be worth it".  If you lose, the design must be such that you say "lets re-arm real quick and go out and take another shot".  It must not be "Eh, we have no chance against their numbers, and I can't pay for another set of armor, we have no shot, I'm gonna log."  
     
    Likewise, if you are running around in "good" equipment, and come across an even sided fight with an opponent who has "the best" equipment, then you have to be able to say "we can totally take them, their gear doesn't give them that much of an advantage".  If they are 50% more powerful because they have better gear, and you have a very small chance of winning even if you play well, you are gonna run away, and the strong group is gonna get tired of people always running away from them.  Both groups of players will quickly get bored and quit.  
     
    Insert the same example for groups of higher and lower leveled characters, or with higher or lower levels of training, etc etc etc.  
     
    To create pvp, you must offer good rewards for the victor, along with a bigger target on their backs, while not punishing the losers.  There are all kinds of ways to do that.  You can offer a sliding curve for experience/currency/resource rewards, where guilds that are bigger are worth more, guilds with higher K/D ratios (or some other measure of effectiveness) are worth more.  If my group rolls into a zone and sees a group of some elite guild, a group of some newb guild, and a couple other groups in between, it should be worth it to go after the elite guild (and its rewarding the victors with more opportunities to fight).  
     
    To do this properly means abandoning the typical treadmills present in PVE MMOs.  You should NEVER have a huge leveling curve, or a huge equipment/gearing curve.  It should be fairly quick and easy to level, and to level alts (especially in a game that looks to have so much character diversity).  It should be quick and cheap to mas produce "good" gear for everyone, and even "the best" gear shouldn't cost you much more in time or resources.  Make it fairly painless for players to have many fully leveled and FULLY GEARED characters.  This will only enhance the pvp spec variety and keep people interested in your game.  Do this right and you create a game that is accessible to both casual players and hardcore players, by taking the "grindy" aspects off the players and putting them on the shoulders of the guilds.  
     
    The "treadmill" has to move to the territory/city/conquest side.  If you keep the difference between "good" and "best" gear/trainers/buffs/whatever small, then you can very easily tie "the best" things into building and ranking a city, and holding territory. Don't have a city?  Then your "good" stuff is still plenty good enough to compete with someone who has a fully ranked city and can make "the best" stuff, which is hopefully only 5-10% better.  Give the casual players with low amounts of playtime the ability to have a fully leveled and geared character, and be able to contribute in pvp by working within a guild.  Give the hardcore players the opportunity to level a dozen or more characters, experiment with them, try new tactics, explore new specs.  Doing this will make the barriers to entry low, keep population high, and keep the endgame meta dynamic fresh. 
     
     The city/territory side also has to have a careful balance.  The risk/reward should be higher here than anywhere else, but still not so high the losing a city is devastating to a guild.  City and territory conquest has to be accessible to the small guilds, while offering the large guilds rewards and bragging rights, and making them worth taking on by other guilds.  
     
     
    TL:DR
     
    Don't create reasons to avoid pvp, even when outnumbered or underleveled/geared.
     
    Re-equipping and getting back out to pvp should be cheap and easy.
     
    The combat effectiveness delta between low and high levels, gear, training should be kept very small.  
     
    Combat should be rewarding to the victors without punishing the losers.
     
    It should be fairly easy and fairly cheap for players to fully level and full gear many characters, in contrast to every other PVE MMO on the market.  
     
    The "treadmill" should be on the city/territory conquest side, should be player driven, and should be on the guild as a group, not on any individual, so that both casual and hardcore players have a reason to stay.  
     
    Risk/reward for territorial control should be higher than anywhere else, but not so high that loss of a city/territory leads people to stop playing.  
  15. Like
    silk got a reaction from LilaLarry in How To Ruin A Pvp Game. . . And Other Topics   
    PLEASE don't build a lovely pvp game and ruin it by creating incentives to avoid PVP.
     
     
    Seriously.  So many games (both those designed for PVP and those where it's an afterthought) have done this over the years.  
     
    I'll try to keep this short, but it likely won't be, apologies in advance.  Summary at the bottom.
     
    It all comes down to risk/reward.  A game has to be designed in such a way that in the majority of cases (not all), players have more to gain than to lose when engaging in pvp, especially in the small scale, more random encounter type.  If the opposite is true, for whatever reason, players will actively avoid fights unless they are assured of victory.  This very quickly leads to less fun, and declining populations, which is a nasty spiral.  
     
    For example, when repair costs in Shadowbane were lowered drastically, in combination with gold drops being slowly raised over time, you had a lot more people engaging in "random" fights, instead of running/recalling away, because there's always a chance to win, pvp is fun, and a death no longer meant 20 minutes of farming to pay off the repair cost.  
     
    In UO, if you were running around red looking for people to kill, you never wore your best stuff, until you had a lot of it, and usually a sizable pack of other players to run around with. You were much more likely to lose your GM poisoned Vanq katana (for instance) than you were to loot another one. 
     
     
    Again, I'm going with the assumption that we are looking at a full loot system in crowfall.  If I'm wrong and on death you just lost the contents of your backpack, much of what I'm saying will still hold, since it seems like resources will be much of what is at risk when people pvp.  
     
    If your equipment is at risk when you pvp, you must be able to cheaply and quickly replace it, and get back out to PVP more.  Further, the functional difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear needs to be quite small.  In a perfect world, the COST difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear is also correspondingly small.  If you are playing, and come upon a group of players 50% larger than you, you MUST NOT have the incentive to run away.  The design must be such that you say "lets give it a shot, we aren't sure, even likely to win, but if we do, it will be worth it".  If you lose, the design must be such that you say "lets re-arm real quick and go out and take another shot".  It must not be "Eh, we have no chance against their numbers, and I can't pay for another set of armor, we have no shot, I'm gonna log."  
     
    Likewise, if you are running around in "good" equipment, and come across an even sided fight with an opponent who has "the best" equipment, then you have to be able to say "we can totally take them, their gear doesn't give them that much of an advantage".  If they are 50% more powerful because they have better gear, and you have a very small chance of winning even if you play well, you are gonna run away, and the strong group is gonna get tired of people always running away from them.  Both groups of players will quickly get bored and quit.  
     
    Insert the same example for groups of higher and lower leveled characters, or with higher or lower levels of training, etc etc etc.  
     
    To create pvp, you must offer good rewards for the victor, along with a bigger target on their backs, while not punishing the losers.  There are all kinds of ways to do that.  You can offer a sliding curve for experience/currency/resource rewards, where guilds that are bigger are worth more, guilds with higher K/D ratios (or some other measure of effectiveness) are worth more.  If my group rolls into a zone and sees a group of some elite guild, a group of some newb guild, and a couple other groups in between, it should be worth it to go after the elite guild (and its rewarding the victors with more opportunities to fight).  
     
    To do this properly means abandoning the typical treadmills present in PVE MMOs.  You should NEVER have a huge leveling curve, or a huge equipment/gearing curve.  It should be fairly quick and easy to level, and to level alts (especially in a game that looks to have so much character diversity).  It should be quick and cheap to mas produce "good" gear for everyone, and even "the best" gear shouldn't cost you much more in time or resources.  Make it fairly painless for players to have many fully leveled and FULLY GEARED characters.  This will only enhance the pvp spec variety and keep people interested in your game.  Do this right and you create a game that is accessible to both casual players and hardcore players, by taking the "grindy" aspects off the players and putting them on the shoulders of the guilds.  
     
    The "treadmill" has to move to the territory/city/conquest side.  If you keep the difference between "good" and "best" gear/trainers/buffs/whatever small, then you can very easily tie "the best" things into building and ranking a city, and holding territory. Don't have a city?  Then your "good" stuff is still plenty good enough to compete with someone who has a fully ranked city and can make "the best" stuff, which is hopefully only 5-10% better.  Give the casual players with low amounts of playtime the ability to have a fully leveled and geared character, and be able to contribute in pvp by working within a guild.  Give the hardcore players the opportunity to level a dozen or more characters, experiment with them, try new tactics, explore new specs.  Doing this will make the barriers to entry low, keep population high, and keep the endgame meta dynamic fresh. 
     
     The city/territory side also has to have a careful balance.  The risk/reward should be higher here than anywhere else, but still not so high the losing a city is devastating to a guild.  City and territory conquest has to be accessible to the small guilds, while offering the large guilds rewards and bragging rights, and making them worth taking on by other guilds.  
     
     
    TL:DR
     
    Don't create reasons to avoid pvp, even when outnumbered or underleveled/geared.
     
    Re-equipping and getting back out to pvp should be cheap and easy.
     
    The combat effectiveness delta between low and high levels, gear, training should be kept very small.  
     
    Combat should be rewarding to the victors without punishing the losers.
     
    It should be fairly easy and fairly cheap for players to fully level and full gear many characters, in contrast to every other PVE MMO on the market.  
     
    The "treadmill" should be on the city/territory conquest side, should be player driven, and should be on the guild as a group, not on any individual, so that both casual and hardcore players have a reason to stay.  
     
    Risk/reward for territorial control should be higher than anywhere else, but not so high that loss of a city/territory leads people to stop playing.  
  16. Like
    silk got a reaction from Sapho in How To Ruin A Pvp Game. . . And Other Topics   
    I already conceded to "overly" on that part, which is the point made in the longer version.  It might be better to say, that penalties to the loser should not be so steep as to keep them from going back several more times to try to win, and the reward for winning should be enough to recoup the costs of several losses.  This way you get multiple rematches instead of one side giving up.  
  17. Like
    silk got a reaction from Sapho in How To Ruin A Pvp Game. . . And Other Topics   
    Whether or not there's a death penalty, defenders should in nearly every case have the advantage of a shorter route back to the battlefield, and a faster rally time.  Any kind of death penalty will effect both sides equally, and the offensive side must have a plan for getting their people back and continuing the fight after they are killed.  We don't know a lot about travel mechanics yet, but ease of distance travel will have a big effect on siege outcome, and should, in my mind, be a significant factor. 
     
    I'm not arguing against against death penalties in general, I'm saying the ECONOMIC impact of character death should be very, very small, so that the risk of losing your gear/paying for repairs/whatever does not becomes a compelling reason to avoid PVP unless the odds are lopsided in your favor.  It should be very cheap to repair/rearm and get back out on the field to fight again after a loss.  A loss should not mean that you have to put in significant time or resources into an activity OTHER THAN pvp in order to cover the costs of engaging in PVP.  If a death means 20 minutes of pve farming and/or crafting and/or (insert boring non pvp activity here) that becomes a significant incentive to avoid, rather than engage, in pvp activities.  If your game is based around player conflict, you can't design it in such a way that players are forced to spend more time prepping for pvp than engaging in it.  I don't believe any game has truly gotten that aspect right.  
     
    To your point about offense vs defense, offense typically has the advantage of momentum, including being able to choose where to engage, but even in GW2, which you reference, a competent but outnumbered defense could hold against a huge numbers disadvantage.  Many groups didn't necessarily find it as sexy as going on offense, and that, coupled with the boredom that came with defending a keep that wasn't being attacked currently, led to the primacy of offense in GW2 more than any in game mechanic.
  18. Like
    silk got a reaction from Sapho in How To Ruin A Pvp Game. . . And Other Topics   
    PLEASE don't build a lovely pvp game and ruin it by creating incentives to avoid PVP.
     
     
    Seriously.  So many games (both those designed for PVP and those where it's an afterthought) have done this over the years.  
     
    I'll try to keep this short, but it likely won't be, apologies in advance.  Summary at the bottom.
     
    It all comes down to risk/reward.  A game has to be designed in such a way that in the majority of cases (not all), players have more to gain than to lose when engaging in pvp, especially in the small scale, more random encounter type.  If the opposite is true, for whatever reason, players will actively avoid fights unless they are assured of victory.  This very quickly leads to less fun, and declining populations, which is a nasty spiral.  
     
    For example, when repair costs in Shadowbane were lowered drastically, in combination with gold drops being slowly raised over time, you had a lot more people engaging in "random" fights, instead of running/recalling away, because there's always a chance to win, pvp is fun, and a death no longer meant 20 minutes of farming to pay off the repair cost.  
     
    In UO, if you were running around red looking for people to kill, you never wore your best stuff, until you had a lot of it, and usually a sizable pack of other players to run around with. You were much more likely to lose your GM poisoned Vanq katana (for instance) than you were to loot another one. 
     
     
    Again, I'm going with the assumption that we are looking at a full loot system in crowfall.  If I'm wrong and on death you just lost the contents of your backpack, much of what I'm saying will still hold, since it seems like resources will be much of what is at risk when people pvp.  
     
    If your equipment is at risk when you pvp, you must be able to cheaply and quickly replace it, and get back out to PVP more.  Further, the functional difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear needs to be quite small.  In a perfect world, the COST difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear is also correspondingly small.  If you are playing, and come upon a group of players 50% larger than you, you MUST NOT have the incentive to run away.  The design must be such that you say "lets give it a shot, we aren't sure, even likely to win, but if we do, it will be worth it".  If you lose, the design must be such that you say "lets re-arm real quick and go out and take another shot".  It must not be "Eh, we have no chance against their numbers, and I can't pay for another set of armor, we have no shot, I'm gonna log."  
     
    Likewise, if you are running around in "good" equipment, and come across an even sided fight with an opponent who has "the best" equipment, then you have to be able to say "we can totally take them, their gear doesn't give them that much of an advantage".  If they are 50% more powerful because they have better gear, and you have a very small chance of winning even if you play well, you are gonna run away, and the strong group is gonna get tired of people always running away from them.  Both groups of players will quickly get bored and quit.  
     
    Insert the same example for groups of higher and lower leveled characters, or with higher or lower levels of training, etc etc etc.  
     
    To create pvp, you must offer good rewards for the victor, along with a bigger target on their backs, while not punishing the losers.  There are all kinds of ways to do that.  You can offer a sliding curve for experience/currency/resource rewards, where guilds that are bigger are worth more, guilds with higher K/D ratios (or some other measure of effectiveness) are worth more.  If my group rolls into a zone and sees a group of some elite guild, a group of some newb guild, and a couple other groups in between, it should be worth it to go after the elite guild (and its rewarding the victors with more opportunities to fight).  
     
    To do this properly means abandoning the typical treadmills present in PVE MMOs.  You should NEVER have a huge leveling curve, or a huge equipment/gearing curve.  It should be fairly quick and easy to level, and to level alts (especially in a game that looks to have so much character diversity).  It should be quick and cheap to mas produce "good" gear for everyone, and even "the best" gear shouldn't cost you much more in time or resources.  Make it fairly painless for players to have many fully leveled and FULLY GEARED characters.  This will only enhance the pvp spec variety and keep people interested in your game.  Do this right and you create a game that is accessible to both casual players and hardcore players, by taking the "grindy" aspects off the players and putting them on the shoulders of the guilds.  
     
    The "treadmill" has to move to the territory/city/conquest side.  If you keep the difference between "good" and "best" gear/trainers/buffs/whatever small, then you can very easily tie "the best" things into building and ranking a city, and holding territory. Don't have a city?  Then your "good" stuff is still plenty good enough to compete with someone who has a fully ranked city and can make "the best" stuff, which is hopefully only 5-10% better.  Give the casual players with low amounts of playtime the ability to have a fully leveled and geared character, and be able to contribute in pvp by working within a guild.  Give the hardcore players the opportunity to level a dozen or more characters, experiment with them, try new tactics, explore new specs.  Doing this will make the barriers to entry low, keep population high, and keep the endgame meta dynamic fresh. 
     
     The city/territory side also has to have a careful balance.  The risk/reward should be higher here than anywhere else, but still not so high the losing a city is devastating to a guild.  City and territory conquest has to be accessible to the small guilds, while offering the large guilds rewards and bragging rights, and making them worth taking on by other guilds.  
     
     
    TL:DR
     
    Don't create reasons to avoid pvp, even when outnumbered or underleveled/geared.
     
    Re-equipping and getting back out to pvp should be cheap and easy.
     
    The combat effectiveness delta between low and high levels, gear, training should be kept very small.  
     
    Combat should be rewarding to the victors without punishing the losers.
     
    It should be fairly easy and fairly cheap for players to fully level and full gear many characters, in contrast to every other PVE MMO on the market.  
     
    The "treadmill" should be on the city/territory conquest side, should be player driven, and should be on the guild as a group, not on any individual, so that both casual and hardcore players have a reason to stay.  
     
    Risk/reward for territorial control should be higher than anywhere else, but not so high that loss of a city/territory leads people to stop playing.  
  19. Like
    silk got a reaction from Spliffsan in How To Ruin A Pvp Game. . . And Other Topics   
    PLEASE don't build a lovely pvp game and ruin it by creating incentives to avoid PVP.
     
     
    Seriously.  So many games (both those designed for PVP and those where it's an afterthought) have done this over the years.  
     
    I'll try to keep this short, but it likely won't be, apologies in advance.  Summary at the bottom.
     
    It all comes down to risk/reward.  A game has to be designed in such a way that in the majority of cases (not all), players have more to gain than to lose when engaging in pvp, especially in the small scale, more random encounter type.  If the opposite is true, for whatever reason, players will actively avoid fights unless they are assured of victory.  This very quickly leads to less fun, and declining populations, which is a nasty spiral.  
     
    For example, when repair costs in Shadowbane were lowered drastically, in combination with gold drops being slowly raised over time, you had a lot more people engaging in "random" fights, instead of running/recalling away, because there's always a chance to win, pvp is fun, and a death no longer meant 20 minutes of farming to pay off the repair cost.  
     
    In UO, if you were running around red looking for people to kill, you never wore your best stuff, until you had a lot of it, and usually a sizable pack of other players to run around with. You were much more likely to lose your GM poisoned Vanq katana (for instance) than you were to loot another one. 
     
     
    Again, I'm going with the assumption that we are looking at a full loot system in crowfall.  If I'm wrong and on death you just lost the contents of your backpack, much of what I'm saying will still hold, since it seems like resources will be much of what is at risk when people pvp.  
     
    If your equipment is at risk when you pvp, you must be able to cheaply and quickly replace it, and get back out to PVP more.  Further, the functional difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear needs to be quite small.  In a perfect world, the COST difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear is also correspondingly small.  If you are playing, and come upon a group of players 50% larger than you, you MUST NOT have the incentive to run away.  The design must be such that you say "lets give it a shot, we aren't sure, even likely to win, but if we do, it will be worth it".  If you lose, the design must be such that you say "lets re-arm real quick and go out and take another shot".  It must not be "Eh, we have no chance against their numbers, and I can't pay for another set of armor, we have no shot, I'm gonna log."  
     
    Likewise, if you are running around in "good" equipment, and come across an even sided fight with an opponent who has "the best" equipment, then you have to be able to say "we can totally take them, their gear doesn't give them that much of an advantage".  If they are 50% more powerful because they have better gear, and you have a very small chance of winning even if you play well, you are gonna run away, and the strong group is gonna get tired of people always running away from them.  Both groups of players will quickly get bored and quit.  
     
    Insert the same example for groups of higher and lower leveled characters, or with higher or lower levels of training, etc etc etc.  
     
    To create pvp, you must offer good rewards for the victor, along with a bigger target on their backs, while not punishing the losers.  There are all kinds of ways to do that.  You can offer a sliding curve for experience/currency/resource rewards, where guilds that are bigger are worth more, guilds with higher K/D ratios (or some other measure of effectiveness) are worth more.  If my group rolls into a zone and sees a group of some elite guild, a group of some newb guild, and a couple other groups in between, it should be worth it to go after the elite guild (and its rewarding the victors with more opportunities to fight).  
     
    To do this properly means abandoning the typical treadmills present in PVE MMOs.  You should NEVER have a huge leveling curve, or a huge equipment/gearing curve.  It should be fairly quick and easy to level, and to level alts (especially in a game that looks to have so much character diversity).  It should be quick and cheap to mas produce "good" gear for everyone, and even "the best" gear shouldn't cost you much more in time or resources.  Make it fairly painless for players to have many fully leveled and FULLY GEARED characters.  This will only enhance the pvp spec variety and keep people interested in your game.  Do this right and you create a game that is accessible to both casual players and hardcore players, by taking the "grindy" aspects off the players and putting them on the shoulders of the guilds.  
     
    The "treadmill" has to move to the territory/city/conquest side.  If you keep the difference between "good" and "best" gear/trainers/buffs/whatever small, then you can very easily tie "the best" things into building and ranking a city, and holding territory. Don't have a city?  Then your "good" stuff is still plenty good enough to compete with someone who has a fully ranked city and can make "the best" stuff, which is hopefully only 5-10% better.  Give the casual players with low amounts of playtime the ability to have a fully leveled and geared character, and be able to contribute in pvp by working within a guild.  Give the hardcore players the opportunity to level a dozen or more characters, experiment with them, try new tactics, explore new specs.  Doing this will make the barriers to entry low, keep population high, and keep the endgame meta dynamic fresh. 
     
     The city/territory side also has to have a careful balance.  The risk/reward should be higher here than anywhere else, but still not so high the losing a city is devastating to a guild.  City and territory conquest has to be accessible to the small guilds, while offering the large guilds rewards and bragging rights, and making them worth taking on by other guilds.  
     
     
    TL:DR
     
    Don't create reasons to avoid pvp, even when outnumbered or underleveled/geared.
     
    Re-equipping and getting back out to pvp should be cheap and easy.
     
    The combat effectiveness delta between low and high levels, gear, training should be kept very small.  
     
    Combat should be rewarding to the victors without punishing the losers.
     
    It should be fairly easy and fairly cheap for players to fully level and full gear many characters, in contrast to every other PVE MMO on the market.  
     
    The "treadmill" should be on the city/territory conquest side, should be player driven, and should be on the guild as a group, not on any individual, so that both casual and hardcore players have a reason to stay.  
     
    Risk/reward for territorial control should be higher than anywhere else, but not so high that loss of a city/territory leads people to stop playing.  
  20. Like
    silk got a reaction from Sir in How To Ruin A Pvp Game. . . And Other Topics   
    PLEASE don't build a lovely pvp game and ruin it by creating incentives to avoid PVP.
     
     
    Seriously.  So many games (both those designed for PVP and those where it's an afterthought) have done this over the years.  
     
    I'll try to keep this short, but it likely won't be, apologies in advance.  Summary at the bottom.
     
    It all comes down to risk/reward.  A game has to be designed in such a way that in the majority of cases (not all), players have more to gain than to lose when engaging in pvp, especially in the small scale, more random encounter type.  If the opposite is true, for whatever reason, players will actively avoid fights unless they are assured of victory.  This very quickly leads to less fun, and declining populations, which is a nasty spiral.  
     
    For example, when repair costs in Shadowbane were lowered drastically, in combination with gold drops being slowly raised over time, you had a lot more people engaging in "random" fights, instead of running/recalling away, because there's always a chance to win, pvp is fun, and a death no longer meant 20 minutes of farming to pay off the repair cost.  
     
    In UO, if you were running around red looking for people to kill, you never wore your best stuff, until you had a lot of it, and usually a sizable pack of other players to run around with. You were much more likely to lose your GM poisoned Vanq katana (for instance) than you were to loot another one. 
     
     
    Again, I'm going with the assumption that we are looking at a full loot system in crowfall.  If I'm wrong and on death you just lost the contents of your backpack, much of what I'm saying will still hold, since it seems like resources will be much of what is at risk when people pvp.  
     
    If your equipment is at risk when you pvp, you must be able to cheaply and quickly replace it, and get back out to PVP more.  Further, the functional difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear needs to be quite small.  In a perfect world, the COST difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear is also correspondingly small.  If you are playing, and come upon a group of players 50% larger than you, you MUST NOT have the incentive to run away.  The design must be such that you say "lets give it a shot, we aren't sure, even likely to win, but if we do, it will be worth it".  If you lose, the design must be such that you say "lets re-arm real quick and go out and take another shot".  It must not be "Eh, we have no chance against their numbers, and I can't pay for another set of armor, we have no shot, I'm gonna log."  
     
    Likewise, if you are running around in "good" equipment, and come across an even sided fight with an opponent who has "the best" equipment, then you have to be able to say "we can totally take them, their gear doesn't give them that much of an advantage".  If they are 50% more powerful because they have better gear, and you have a very small chance of winning even if you play well, you are gonna run away, and the strong group is gonna get tired of people always running away from them.  Both groups of players will quickly get bored and quit.  
     
    Insert the same example for groups of higher and lower leveled characters, or with higher or lower levels of training, etc etc etc.  
     
    To create pvp, you must offer good rewards for the victor, along with a bigger target on their backs, while not punishing the losers.  There are all kinds of ways to do that.  You can offer a sliding curve for experience/currency/resource rewards, where guilds that are bigger are worth more, guilds with higher K/D ratios (or some other measure of effectiveness) are worth more.  If my group rolls into a zone and sees a group of some elite guild, a group of some newb guild, and a couple other groups in between, it should be worth it to go after the elite guild (and its rewarding the victors with more opportunities to fight).  
     
    To do this properly means abandoning the typical treadmills present in PVE MMOs.  You should NEVER have a huge leveling curve, or a huge equipment/gearing curve.  It should be fairly quick and easy to level, and to level alts (especially in a game that looks to have so much character diversity).  It should be quick and cheap to mas produce "good" gear for everyone, and even "the best" gear shouldn't cost you much more in time or resources.  Make it fairly painless for players to have many fully leveled and FULLY GEARED characters.  This will only enhance the pvp spec variety and keep people interested in your game.  Do this right and you create a game that is accessible to both casual players and hardcore players, by taking the "grindy" aspects off the players and putting them on the shoulders of the guilds.  
     
    The "treadmill" has to move to the territory/city/conquest side.  If you keep the difference between "good" and "best" gear/trainers/buffs/whatever small, then you can very easily tie "the best" things into building and ranking a city, and holding territory. Don't have a city?  Then your "good" stuff is still plenty good enough to compete with someone who has a fully ranked city and can make "the best" stuff, which is hopefully only 5-10% better.  Give the casual players with low amounts of playtime the ability to have a fully leveled and geared character, and be able to contribute in pvp by working within a guild.  Give the hardcore players the opportunity to level a dozen or more characters, experiment with them, try new tactics, explore new specs.  Doing this will make the barriers to entry low, keep population high, and keep the endgame meta dynamic fresh. 
     
     The city/territory side also has to have a careful balance.  The risk/reward should be higher here than anywhere else, but still not so high the losing a city is devastating to a guild.  City and territory conquest has to be accessible to the small guilds, while offering the large guilds rewards and bragging rights, and making them worth taking on by other guilds.  
     
     
    TL:DR
     
    Don't create reasons to avoid pvp, even when outnumbered or underleveled/geared.
     
    Re-equipping and getting back out to pvp should be cheap and easy.
     
    The combat effectiveness delta between low and high levels, gear, training should be kept very small.  
     
    Combat should be rewarding to the victors without punishing the losers.
     
    It should be fairly easy and fairly cheap for players to fully level and full gear many characters, in contrast to every other PVE MMO on the market.  
     
    The "treadmill" should be on the city/territory conquest side, should be player driven, and should be on the guild as a group, not on any individual, so that both casual and hardcore players have a reason to stay.  
     
    Risk/reward for territorial control should be higher than anywhere else, but not so high that loss of a city/territory leads people to stop playing.  
  21. Like
    silk got a reaction from ozzie mozzie in How To Ruin A Pvp Game. . . And Other Topics   
    PLEASE don't build a lovely pvp game and ruin it by creating incentives to avoid PVP.
     
     
    Seriously.  So many games (both those designed for PVP and those where it's an afterthought) have done this over the years.  
     
    I'll try to keep this short, but it likely won't be, apologies in advance.  Summary at the bottom.
     
    It all comes down to risk/reward.  A game has to be designed in such a way that in the majority of cases (not all), players have more to gain than to lose when engaging in pvp, especially in the small scale, more random encounter type.  If the opposite is true, for whatever reason, players will actively avoid fights unless they are assured of victory.  This very quickly leads to less fun, and declining populations, which is a nasty spiral.  
     
    For example, when repair costs in Shadowbane were lowered drastically, in combination with gold drops being slowly raised over time, you had a lot more people engaging in "random" fights, instead of running/recalling away, because there's always a chance to win, pvp is fun, and a death no longer meant 20 minutes of farming to pay off the repair cost.  
     
    In UO, if you were running around red looking for people to kill, you never wore your best stuff, until you had a lot of it, and usually a sizable pack of other players to run around with. You were much more likely to lose your GM poisoned Vanq katana (for instance) than you were to loot another one. 
     
     
    Again, I'm going with the assumption that we are looking at a full loot system in crowfall.  If I'm wrong and on death you just lost the contents of your backpack, much of what I'm saying will still hold, since it seems like resources will be much of what is at risk when people pvp.  
     
    If your equipment is at risk when you pvp, you must be able to cheaply and quickly replace it, and get back out to PVP more.  Further, the functional difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear needs to be quite small.  In a perfect world, the COST difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear is also correspondingly small.  If you are playing, and come upon a group of players 50% larger than you, you MUST NOT have the incentive to run away.  The design must be such that you say "lets give it a shot, we aren't sure, even likely to win, but if we do, it will be worth it".  If you lose, the design must be such that you say "lets re-arm real quick and go out and take another shot".  It must not be "Eh, we have no chance against their numbers, and I can't pay for another set of armor, we have no shot, I'm gonna log."  
     
    Likewise, if you are running around in "good" equipment, and come across an even sided fight with an opponent who has "the best" equipment, then you have to be able to say "we can totally take them, their gear doesn't give them that much of an advantage".  If they are 50% more powerful because they have better gear, and you have a very small chance of winning even if you play well, you are gonna run away, and the strong group is gonna get tired of people always running away from them.  Both groups of players will quickly get bored and quit.  
     
    Insert the same example for groups of higher and lower leveled characters, or with higher or lower levels of training, etc etc etc.  
     
    To create pvp, you must offer good rewards for the victor, along with a bigger target on their backs, while not punishing the losers.  There are all kinds of ways to do that.  You can offer a sliding curve for experience/currency/resource rewards, where guilds that are bigger are worth more, guilds with higher K/D ratios (or some other measure of effectiveness) are worth more.  If my group rolls into a zone and sees a group of some elite guild, a group of some newb guild, and a couple other groups in between, it should be worth it to go after the elite guild (and its rewarding the victors with more opportunities to fight).  
     
    To do this properly means abandoning the typical treadmills present in PVE MMOs.  You should NEVER have a huge leveling curve, or a huge equipment/gearing curve.  It should be fairly quick and easy to level, and to level alts (especially in a game that looks to have so much character diversity).  It should be quick and cheap to mas produce "good" gear for everyone, and even "the best" gear shouldn't cost you much more in time or resources.  Make it fairly painless for players to have many fully leveled and FULLY GEARED characters.  This will only enhance the pvp spec variety and keep people interested in your game.  Do this right and you create a game that is accessible to both casual players and hardcore players, by taking the "grindy" aspects off the players and putting them on the shoulders of the guilds.  
     
    The "treadmill" has to move to the territory/city/conquest side.  If you keep the difference between "good" and "best" gear/trainers/buffs/whatever small, then you can very easily tie "the best" things into building and ranking a city, and holding territory. Don't have a city?  Then your "good" stuff is still plenty good enough to compete with someone who has a fully ranked city and can make "the best" stuff, which is hopefully only 5-10% better.  Give the casual players with low amounts of playtime the ability to have a fully leveled and geared character, and be able to contribute in pvp by working within a guild.  Give the hardcore players the opportunity to level a dozen or more characters, experiment with them, try new tactics, explore new specs.  Doing this will make the barriers to entry low, keep population high, and keep the endgame meta dynamic fresh. 
     
     The city/territory side also has to have a careful balance.  The risk/reward should be higher here than anywhere else, but still not so high the losing a city is devastating to a guild.  City and territory conquest has to be accessible to the small guilds, while offering the large guilds rewards and bragging rights, and making them worth taking on by other guilds.  
     
     
    TL:DR
     
    Don't create reasons to avoid pvp, even when outnumbered or underleveled/geared.
     
    Re-equipping and getting back out to pvp should be cheap and easy.
     
    The combat effectiveness delta between low and high levels, gear, training should be kept very small.  
     
    Combat should be rewarding to the victors without punishing the losers.
     
    It should be fairly easy and fairly cheap for players to fully level and full gear many characters, in contrast to every other PVE MMO on the market.  
     
    The "treadmill" should be on the city/territory conquest side, should be player driven, and should be on the guild as a group, not on any individual, so that both casual and hardcore players have a reason to stay.  
     
    Risk/reward for territorial control should be higher than anywhere else, but not so high that loss of a city/territory leads people to stop playing.  
  22. Like
    silk got a reaction from M0rdred in How To Ruin A Pvp Game. . . And Other Topics   
    PLEASE don't build a lovely pvp game and ruin it by creating incentives to avoid PVP.
     
     
    Seriously.  So many games (both those designed for PVP and those where it's an afterthought) have done this over the years.  
     
    I'll try to keep this short, but it likely won't be, apologies in advance.  Summary at the bottom.
     
    It all comes down to risk/reward.  A game has to be designed in such a way that in the majority of cases (not all), players have more to gain than to lose when engaging in pvp, especially in the small scale, more random encounter type.  If the opposite is true, for whatever reason, players will actively avoid fights unless they are assured of victory.  This very quickly leads to less fun, and declining populations, which is a nasty spiral.  
     
    For example, when repair costs in Shadowbane were lowered drastically, in combination with gold drops being slowly raised over time, you had a lot more people engaging in "random" fights, instead of running/recalling away, because there's always a chance to win, pvp is fun, and a death no longer meant 20 minutes of farming to pay off the repair cost.  
     
    In UO, if you were running around red looking for people to kill, you never wore your best stuff, until you had a lot of it, and usually a sizable pack of other players to run around with. You were much more likely to lose your GM poisoned Vanq katana (for instance) than you were to loot another one. 
     
     
    Again, I'm going with the assumption that we are looking at a full loot system in crowfall.  If I'm wrong and on death you just lost the contents of your backpack, much of what I'm saying will still hold, since it seems like resources will be much of what is at risk when people pvp.  
     
    If your equipment is at risk when you pvp, you must be able to cheaply and quickly replace it, and get back out to PVP more.  Further, the functional difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear needs to be quite small.  In a perfect world, the COST difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear is also correspondingly small.  If you are playing, and come upon a group of players 50% larger than you, you MUST NOT have the incentive to run away.  The design must be such that you say "lets give it a shot, we aren't sure, even likely to win, but if we do, it will be worth it".  If you lose, the design must be such that you say "lets re-arm real quick and go out and take another shot".  It must not be "Eh, we have no chance against their numbers, and I can't pay for another set of armor, we have no shot, I'm gonna log."  
     
    Likewise, if you are running around in "good" equipment, and come across an even sided fight with an opponent who has "the best" equipment, then you have to be able to say "we can totally take them, their gear doesn't give them that much of an advantage".  If they are 50% more powerful because they have better gear, and you have a very small chance of winning even if you play well, you are gonna run away, and the strong group is gonna get tired of people always running away from them.  Both groups of players will quickly get bored and quit.  
     
    Insert the same example for groups of higher and lower leveled characters, or with higher or lower levels of training, etc etc etc.  
     
    To create pvp, you must offer good rewards for the victor, along with a bigger target on their backs, while not punishing the losers.  There are all kinds of ways to do that.  You can offer a sliding curve for experience/currency/resource rewards, where guilds that are bigger are worth more, guilds with higher K/D ratios (or some other measure of effectiveness) are worth more.  If my group rolls into a zone and sees a group of some elite guild, a group of some newb guild, and a couple other groups in between, it should be worth it to go after the elite guild (and its rewarding the victors with more opportunities to fight).  
     
    To do this properly means abandoning the typical treadmills present in PVE MMOs.  You should NEVER have a huge leveling curve, or a huge equipment/gearing curve.  It should be fairly quick and easy to level, and to level alts (especially in a game that looks to have so much character diversity).  It should be quick and cheap to mas produce "good" gear for everyone, and even "the best" gear shouldn't cost you much more in time or resources.  Make it fairly painless for players to have many fully leveled and FULLY GEARED characters.  This will only enhance the pvp spec variety and keep people interested in your game.  Do this right and you create a game that is accessible to both casual players and hardcore players, by taking the "grindy" aspects off the players and putting them on the shoulders of the guilds.  
     
    The "treadmill" has to move to the territory/city/conquest side.  If you keep the difference between "good" and "best" gear/trainers/buffs/whatever small, then you can very easily tie "the best" things into building and ranking a city, and holding territory. Don't have a city?  Then your "good" stuff is still plenty good enough to compete with someone who has a fully ranked city and can make "the best" stuff, which is hopefully only 5-10% better.  Give the casual players with low amounts of playtime the ability to have a fully leveled and geared character, and be able to contribute in pvp by working within a guild.  Give the hardcore players the opportunity to level a dozen or more characters, experiment with them, try new tactics, explore new specs.  Doing this will make the barriers to entry low, keep population high, and keep the endgame meta dynamic fresh. 
     
     The city/territory side also has to have a careful balance.  The risk/reward should be higher here than anywhere else, but still not so high the losing a city is devastating to a guild.  City and territory conquest has to be accessible to the small guilds, while offering the large guilds rewards and bragging rights, and making them worth taking on by other guilds.  
     
     
    TL:DR
     
    Don't create reasons to avoid pvp, even when outnumbered or underleveled/geared.
     
    Re-equipping and getting back out to pvp should be cheap and easy.
     
    The combat effectiveness delta between low and high levels, gear, training should be kept very small.  
     
    Combat should be rewarding to the victors without punishing the losers.
     
    It should be fairly easy and fairly cheap for players to fully level and full gear many characters, in contrast to every other PVE MMO on the market.  
     
    The "treadmill" should be on the city/territory conquest side, should be player driven, and should be on the guild as a group, not on any individual, so that both casual and hardcore players have a reason to stay.  
     
    Risk/reward for territorial control should be higher than anywhere else, but not so high that loss of a city/territory leads people to stop playing.  
  23. Like
    silk got a reaction from bairloch in Marriage in Crowfall   
    No, but you will be able to kill them and take their stuff, repeatedly.  And, also, burn their house down.
  24. Like
    silk got a reaction from Jorky in How To Ruin A Pvp Game. . . And Other Topics   
    PLEASE don't build a lovely pvp game and ruin it by creating incentives to avoid PVP.
     
     
    Seriously.  So many games (both those designed for PVP and those where it's an afterthought) have done this over the years.  
     
    I'll try to keep this short, but it likely won't be, apologies in advance.  Summary at the bottom.
     
    It all comes down to risk/reward.  A game has to be designed in such a way that in the majority of cases (not all), players have more to gain than to lose when engaging in pvp, especially in the small scale, more random encounter type.  If the opposite is true, for whatever reason, players will actively avoid fights unless they are assured of victory.  This very quickly leads to less fun, and declining populations, which is a nasty spiral.  
     
    For example, when repair costs in Shadowbane were lowered drastically, in combination with gold drops being slowly raised over time, you had a lot more people engaging in "random" fights, instead of running/recalling away, because there's always a chance to win, pvp is fun, and a death no longer meant 20 minutes of farming to pay off the repair cost.  
     
    In UO, if you were running around red looking for people to kill, you never wore your best stuff, until you had a lot of it, and usually a sizable pack of other players to run around with. You were much more likely to lose your GM poisoned Vanq katana (for instance) than you were to loot another one. 
     
     
    Again, I'm going with the assumption that we are looking at a full loot system in crowfall.  If I'm wrong and on death you just lost the contents of your backpack, much of what I'm saying will still hold, since it seems like resources will be much of what is at risk when people pvp.  
     
    If your equipment is at risk when you pvp, you must be able to cheaply and quickly replace it, and get back out to PVP more.  Further, the functional difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear needs to be quite small.  In a perfect world, the COST difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear is also correspondingly small.  If you are playing, and come upon a group of players 50% larger than you, you MUST NOT have the incentive to run away.  The design must be such that you say "lets give it a shot, we aren't sure, even likely to win, but if we do, it will be worth it".  If you lose, the design must be such that you say "lets re-arm real quick and go out and take another shot".  It must not be "Eh, we have no chance against their numbers, and I can't pay for another set of armor, we have no shot, I'm gonna log."  
     
    Likewise, if you are running around in "good" equipment, and come across an even sided fight with an opponent who has "the best" equipment, then you have to be able to say "we can totally take them, their gear doesn't give them that much of an advantage".  If they are 50% more powerful because they have better gear, and you have a very small chance of winning even if you play well, you are gonna run away, and the strong group is gonna get tired of people always running away from them.  Both groups of players will quickly get bored and quit.  
     
    Insert the same example for groups of higher and lower leveled characters, or with higher or lower levels of training, etc etc etc.  
     
    To create pvp, you must offer good rewards for the victor, along with a bigger target on their backs, while not punishing the losers.  There are all kinds of ways to do that.  You can offer a sliding curve for experience/currency/resource rewards, where guilds that are bigger are worth more, guilds with higher K/D ratios (or some other measure of effectiveness) are worth more.  If my group rolls into a zone and sees a group of some elite guild, a group of some newb guild, and a couple other groups in between, it should be worth it to go after the elite guild (and its rewarding the victors with more opportunities to fight).  
     
    To do this properly means abandoning the typical treadmills present in PVE MMOs.  You should NEVER have a huge leveling curve, or a huge equipment/gearing curve.  It should be fairly quick and easy to level, and to level alts (especially in a game that looks to have so much character diversity).  It should be quick and cheap to mas produce "good" gear for everyone, and even "the best" gear shouldn't cost you much more in time or resources.  Make it fairly painless for players to have many fully leveled and FULLY GEARED characters.  This will only enhance the pvp spec variety and keep people interested in your game.  Do this right and you create a game that is accessible to both casual players and hardcore players, by taking the "grindy" aspects off the players and putting them on the shoulders of the guilds.  
     
    The "treadmill" has to move to the territory/city/conquest side.  If you keep the difference between "good" and "best" gear/trainers/buffs/whatever small, then you can very easily tie "the best" things into building and ranking a city, and holding territory. Don't have a city?  Then your "good" stuff is still plenty good enough to compete with someone who has a fully ranked city and can make "the best" stuff, which is hopefully only 5-10% better.  Give the casual players with low amounts of playtime the ability to have a fully leveled and geared character, and be able to contribute in pvp by working within a guild.  Give the hardcore players the opportunity to level a dozen or more characters, experiment with them, try new tactics, explore new specs.  Doing this will make the barriers to entry low, keep population high, and keep the endgame meta dynamic fresh. 
     
     The city/territory side also has to have a careful balance.  The risk/reward should be higher here than anywhere else, but still not so high the losing a city is devastating to a guild.  City and territory conquest has to be accessible to the small guilds, while offering the large guilds rewards and bragging rights, and making them worth taking on by other guilds.  
     
     
    TL:DR
     
    Don't create reasons to avoid pvp, even when outnumbered or underleveled/geared.
     
    Re-equipping and getting back out to pvp should be cheap and easy.
     
    The combat effectiveness delta between low and high levels, gear, training should be kept very small.  
     
    Combat should be rewarding to the victors without punishing the losers.
     
    It should be fairly easy and fairly cheap for players to fully level and full gear many characters, in contrast to every other PVE MMO on the market.  
     
    The "treadmill" should be on the city/territory conquest side, should be player driven, and should be on the guild as a group, not on any individual, so that both casual and hardcore players have a reason to stay.  
     
    Risk/reward for territorial control should be higher than anywhere else, but not so high that loss of a city/territory leads people to stop playing.  
  25. Like
    silk got a reaction from buc0727 in How To Ruin A Pvp Game. . . And Other Topics   
    PLEASE don't build a lovely pvp game and ruin it by creating incentives to avoid PVP.
     
     
    Seriously.  So many games (both those designed for PVP and those where it's an afterthought) have done this over the years.  
     
    I'll try to keep this short, but it likely won't be, apologies in advance.  Summary at the bottom.
     
    It all comes down to risk/reward.  A game has to be designed in such a way that in the majority of cases (not all), players have more to gain than to lose when engaging in pvp, especially in the small scale, more random encounter type.  If the opposite is true, for whatever reason, players will actively avoid fights unless they are assured of victory.  This very quickly leads to less fun, and declining populations, which is a nasty spiral.  
     
    For example, when repair costs in Shadowbane were lowered drastically, in combination with gold drops being slowly raised over time, you had a lot more people engaging in "random" fights, instead of running/recalling away, because there's always a chance to win, pvp is fun, and a death no longer meant 20 minutes of farming to pay off the repair cost.  
     
    In UO, if you were running around red looking for people to kill, you never wore your best stuff, until you had a lot of it, and usually a sizable pack of other players to run around with. You were much more likely to lose your GM poisoned Vanq katana (for instance) than you were to loot another one. 
     
     
    Again, I'm going with the assumption that we are looking at a full loot system in crowfall.  If I'm wrong and on death you just lost the contents of your backpack, much of what I'm saying will still hold, since it seems like resources will be much of what is at risk when people pvp.  
     
    If your equipment is at risk when you pvp, you must be able to cheaply and quickly replace it, and get back out to PVP more.  Further, the functional difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear needs to be quite small.  In a perfect world, the COST difference between "good" gear and "the best" gear is also correspondingly small.  If you are playing, and come upon a group of players 50% larger than you, you MUST NOT have the incentive to run away.  The design must be such that you say "lets give it a shot, we aren't sure, even likely to win, but if we do, it will be worth it".  If you lose, the design must be such that you say "lets re-arm real quick and go out and take another shot".  It must not be "Eh, we have no chance against their numbers, and I can't pay for another set of armor, we have no shot, I'm gonna log."  
     
    Likewise, if you are running around in "good" equipment, and come across an even sided fight with an opponent who has "the best" equipment, then you have to be able to say "we can totally take them, their gear doesn't give them that much of an advantage".  If they are 50% more powerful because they have better gear, and you have a very small chance of winning even if you play well, you are gonna run away, and the strong group is gonna get tired of people always running away from them.  Both groups of players will quickly get bored and quit.  
     
    Insert the same example for groups of higher and lower leveled characters, or with higher or lower levels of training, etc etc etc.  
     
    To create pvp, you must offer good rewards for the victor, along with a bigger target on their backs, while not punishing the losers.  There are all kinds of ways to do that.  You can offer a sliding curve for experience/currency/resource rewards, where guilds that are bigger are worth more, guilds with higher K/D ratios (or some other measure of effectiveness) are worth more.  If my group rolls into a zone and sees a group of some elite guild, a group of some newb guild, and a couple other groups in between, it should be worth it to go after the elite guild (and its rewarding the victors with more opportunities to fight).  
     
    To do this properly means abandoning the typical treadmills present in PVE MMOs.  You should NEVER have a huge leveling curve, or a huge equipment/gearing curve.  It should be fairly quick and easy to level, and to level alts (especially in a game that looks to have so much character diversity).  It should be quick and cheap to mas produce "good" gear for everyone, and even "the best" gear shouldn't cost you much more in time or resources.  Make it fairly painless for players to have many fully leveled and FULLY GEARED characters.  This will only enhance the pvp spec variety and keep people interested in your game.  Do this right and you create a game that is accessible to both casual players and hardcore players, by taking the "grindy" aspects off the players and putting them on the shoulders of the guilds.  
     
    The "treadmill" has to move to the territory/city/conquest side.  If you keep the difference between "good" and "best" gear/trainers/buffs/whatever small, then you can very easily tie "the best" things into building and ranking a city, and holding territory. Don't have a city?  Then your "good" stuff is still plenty good enough to compete with someone who has a fully ranked city and can make "the best" stuff, which is hopefully only 5-10% better.  Give the casual players with low amounts of playtime the ability to have a fully leveled and geared character, and be able to contribute in pvp by working within a guild.  Give the hardcore players the opportunity to level a dozen or more characters, experiment with them, try new tactics, explore new specs.  Doing this will make the barriers to entry low, keep population high, and keep the endgame meta dynamic fresh. 
     
     The city/territory side also has to have a careful balance.  The risk/reward should be higher here than anywhere else, but still not so high the losing a city is devastating to a guild.  City and territory conquest has to be accessible to the small guilds, while offering the large guilds rewards and bragging rights, and making them worth taking on by other guilds.  
     
     
    TL:DR
     
    Don't create reasons to avoid pvp, even when outnumbered or underleveled/geared.
     
    Re-equipping and getting back out to pvp should be cheap and easy.
     
    The combat effectiveness delta between low and high levels, gear, training should be kept very small.  
     
    Combat should be rewarding to the victors without punishing the losers.
     
    It should be fairly easy and fairly cheap for players to fully level and full gear many characters, in contrast to every other PVE MMO on the market.  
     
    The "treadmill" should be on the city/territory conquest side, should be player driven, and should be on the guild as a group, not on any individual, so that both casual and hardcore players have a reason to stay.  
     
    Risk/reward for territorial control should be higher than anywhere else, but not so high that loss of a city/territory leads people to stop playing.  
×
×
  • Create New...