I fear that what the OP suggests will just kill the PvP servers with slight faction imbalance.

There is a reason why one side should not hault completely the progress of the other side. WAR taught valuable lessons in this regard. If you let one side totally dominate, you further imbalance the server, when people flock to the winning side or change servers. Then you have the more populated side get bored because they have noone to fight with, so they too quit and leave. Then what's left of the less populated side starts gaining momentum again. Only this time the server population is but a fraction of its original size.

I think the changes that offer some sort of protection to one faction are more than reasonable, they are necessary.

What the OP suggests would make perfect sense in a factionless game, like Tera or Lineage II. In a two sides faction server, it'll just kill the population over time, until only the PvE servers are populated. And that's not because the game is PvE focused, but more because they are the only servers where any kind of reasonable progress can occur.

There are limits on everyone's patience. If you get rolfstomped due to numbers imbalance, one day your patience will dry out and you'll either roll to a different side, different server or different game. No need to look any further than WAR for the truth of this.

Rift is trying to promote faction based open world PvP. Without some sort of rules to keep the server healthy, the open world PvP will fail.

Originally posted by Teosen

 

Dear Devs,

 

I've decided to share my concerns regarding last major changes that occured during previous beta event (Planar War, 6) related to PvP - these changes drastically nullified fun obtained from world pvp player's view and are slowly destroying the whole idea of pvp servers.

 

When preordered game I was focused on single mind - pvp. Pve content was merely a pleasant addition. My experience from alpha and early beta, as well as knowledge of pvp relevant podcasts made me feel safe - everything was almost perfectly fine. However when i tested last changes I've decided to step in and let you know about some of my thoughts:

 

1. Rollback of the changes that affected guards at quest hubs is absolutely necessary - this changed even the smallest npc camps into unconquerable strongholds, creating multiple safe-spots and ruining world pvp.

 

2. Removal of the dungeon teleports on pvp server, as they completely negate existance of pvp hot spots on the way towards pve dungeons.

 

3. Removing or decreasing experience gained on warfronts and dungeons - alot of players just grind instances as it's the fastest way to reach max level - it's leading to further limit of world pvp.

 

4. Additional ruleset that needs to be accepted by a player, who decides to join a PvP server. It would make sure the player is aware and accepts what is he getting into - it should reduce further whining on forums.

 

 

I'm asking you for being open-minded and having serious attitiude towards pvp servers as neglecting them will lead to looseness of a large pvp players playerbase.

 

I would also like to remind that many players trusted you and preordered the game only to be baffled by the changes made to PvP - it took OUR fun away and shattered the idea of playing on a PvP server. Although during beta event 4, my guild mates and I have foretasted best pvp time in the game. Our expectation is to backtrack to this pvp’s level and start to develop it from that point.You are good at implementing successful pve features from the other mmos, so why not to do the same in terms of pvp. One of the best pvp source to derive from is DAOC. I have seen countless threads where people were writing about pvp implementations form mentioned above game .

 

Beside the fact that Rift is pve game in general idea, it has huge potential to add superb pvp experience and great mix of pve and pvp. Maintenance of vivid open pvp should be crucial goal to obtain. Many of us have enough of cramped, instantioned pvp. We would like to have some space to take a breath.

 

My hope is that the last patch was only tweak developed to check which parts of content works well and which doesnt and you realize it cannot be left that way. Unfortunately it made alot of people pull their orders back until the pvp matter is going to be sorted out.

 

Sincerely,

PvP server player

 

http://forums.riftgame.com/showthread.php?58983-PETITION-last-hope-tweak-for-pvp-server

Considering you are posting a letter addressed to RIFT devs on an mmorpg forum and not sending it in feedback, twitter, or dev chat like the devs have asked us to do time and again I am just going to assume this is another flame and not even bother reading it...

peace

Originally posted by wallet113

No to pvp server

perma-death server would better suit you.

I'd like to better know there plans for PvP servers, seems fluid right now.

[mod edit]

Originally posted by smut

Originally posted by Rockgod99

Originally posted by smut

These changes that were suggested were just for PVP servers, not PVE servers.

well pvp servers arent meant to halt peoples progress and thats what the OP is suggesting.

to me a pvp server brings some type of danger element to a game world, it immerses me more.

I don't play on a pvp server so twenty asshats can camp my quest hub and stop me from handing in a quest.

Or forcing me out of a rare dungeon or warfront run so they could roll up on me in a large group.

I have no issue with pvp conflict out in the field, this is why i roll on pvp server. what i do have an issue with is someone messing with my progression. 

What "danger" will there be on a pvp server if people can just avoid combat all the time? I am not saying I agree with all the things in the original post, there is a few things I do not agree with it in it. But it does seem like alot of the changes made in the last beta make a PVP server just like a PvE server. If you want to PvE in peace, roll on a server made just for that aka a PvE server.

This same post on the Rift forums has 15+ pages of mainly overwhelming support, it seems PvPers over there want PvP to be like it was originally.

:edit I'm fine with noobs being safe in capitals and starter areas, but in contested zones you should never feel safe. if you want uninterrupted questing roll on a PvE server, THAT is what they are there for.

the danger is there when you out actually doing quests, traveling, clearing rifts, gathering or generally exploring. I dont see how quest hubs being safe so i could actually turn in quest would hinder that.

Originally posted by Sevensodd

You guys do realize this is a beta?  Coming to mmorpg.com forums and venting your rage isn't going to do anything.  Write this shit to Trion.  Thats what testing a beta means, test it.  Report shit to the maker of the game.  And any suggestions.  People need to stop joining betas just to play the game, it takes more quality away from the game then you can imagine.

 amen to that man.....i'll be glad when beta is over and all the freebies leave.

Originally posted by Sorrow

Considering you are posting a letter addressed to RIFT devs on an mmorpg forum and not sending it in feedback, twitter, or dev chat like the devs have asked us to do time and again I am just going to assume this is another flame and not even bother reading it...

peace

 You CLEARLY missed the link in the post (you even quoted it) that shows it was posted on the official Rift Forums. And why are you assuming it wasn't sent to the devs? Excuse the guy for discussing a game on the forums, jeez.

Originally posted by Rockgod99

Originally posted by smut

Originally posted by Rockgod99

Originally posted by smut

These changes that were suggested were just for PVP servers, not PVE servers.

well pvp servers arent meant to halt peoples progress and thats what the OP is suggesting.

to me a pvp server brings some type of danger element to a game world, it immerses me more.

I don't play on a pvp server so twenty asshats can camp my quest hub and stop me from handing in a quest.

Or forcing me out of a rare dungeon or warfront run so they could roll up on me in a large group.

I have no issue with pvp conflict out in the field, this is why i roll on pvp server. what i do have an issue with is someone messing with my progression. 

What "danger" will there be on a pvp server if people can just avoid combat all the time? I am not saying I agree with all the things in the original post, there is a few things I do not agree with it in it. But it does seem like alot of the changes made in the last beta make a PVP server just like a PvE server. If you want to PvE in peace, roll on a server made just for that aka a PvE server.

This same post on the Rift forums has 15+ pages of mainly overwhelming support, it seems PvPers over there want PvP to be like it was originally.

:edit I'm fine with noobs being safe in capitals and starter areas, but in contested zones you should never feel safe. if you want uninterrupted questing roll on a PvE server, THAT is what they are there for.

the danger is there when you out actually doing quests, traveling, clearing rifts, gathering or generally exploring. I dont see how quest hubs being safe so i could actually turn in quest would hinder that.

I'm sorry to say this RG, but you need to roll on a pve server and flag for pvp when you deem fit.

It's clear that you only want danger when you feel like it. This is controlled danger and does not belong on a pvp server.

This ladies and gentlemen is where the problem lies between pvp'ers and pve'ers. You need to very carefully decide what you are before choosing a server. If you choose pvp, you will get ganked, you will die and you will be frustrated at times. But this is part of the whole pvp experience which for the most part gives you very exciting experiences. 

I see all these pve people throwing hissy fits because pvp people ask some love. Love btw that was allready there but removed. The remarks saying that Rift is designed as pve and pvp has no business here is just plain ignorant.  But even then there is a simple solution, go roll on a pve server ffs! Problem solved.

You can't stand the heat .. get out of the ffing kitchen!

I too was looking forward to the world pvp and as it seems now, it kindy got gimped. I'm not happy with this but will keep an eye on what Trion does with this, after all it's still beta.

You're confusing faction based PvP with factionless based one. The factionless works without rules. The faction doesn't. Either they need a third faction to deliver some sort of balance (like DaoC), an artificial third faction (like Aion) or some other means to keep the rolfstomping in check.

Originally posted by sloeber

Originally posted by Sevensodd

You guys do realize this is a beta?  Coming to mmorpg.com forums and venting your rage isn't going to do anything.  Write this shit to Trion.  Thats what testing a beta means, test it.  Report shit to the maker of the game.  And any suggestions.  People need to stop joining betas just to play the game, it takes more quality away from the game then you can imagine.

 amen to that man.....i'll be glad when beta is over and all the freebies leave.

 

I'll be glad the day stupid posts like these disolve by themselves.

1. This is a discussion forum, we discuss things.

2. He did post this on the Rift forums, I guess you guys didn't read past the title and missed the link in the op.

Originally posted by Seffren

Originally posted by Rockgod99

Originally posted by smut

Originally posted by Rockgod99

Originally posted by smut

These changes that were suggested were just for PVP servers, not PVE servers.

well pvp servers arent meant to halt peoples progress and thats what the OP is suggesting.

to me a pvp server brings some type of danger element to a game world, it immerses me more.

I don't play on a pvp server so twenty asshats can camp my quest hub and stop me from handing in a quest.

Or forcing me out of a rare dungeon or warfront run so they could roll up on me in a large group.

I have no issue with pvp conflict out in the field, this is why i roll on pvp server. what i do have an issue with is someone messing with my progression. 

What "danger" will there be on a pvp server if people can just avoid combat all the time? I am not saying I agree with all the things in the original post, there is a few things I do not agree with it in it. But it does seem like alot of the changes made in the last beta make a PVP server just like a PvE server. If you want to PvE in peace, roll on a server made just for that aka a PvE server.

This same post on the Rift forums has 15+ pages of mainly overwhelming support, it seems PvPers over there want PvP to be like it was originally.

:edit I'm fine with noobs being safe in capitals and starter areas, but in contested zones you should never feel safe. if you want uninterrupted questing roll on a PvE server, THAT is what they are there for.

the danger is there when you out actually doing quests, traveling, clearing rifts, gathering or generally exploring. I dont see how quest hubs being safe so i could actually turn in quest would hinder that.

 

I'm sorry to say this RG, but you need to roll on a pve server and flag for pvp when you deem fit.

It's clear that you only want danger when you feel like it. This is controlled danger and does not belong on a pvp server.

 

This ladies and gentlemen is where the problem lies between pvp'ers and pve'ers. You need to very carefully decide what you are before choosing a server. If you choose pvp, you will get ganked, you will die and you will be frustrated at times. But this is part of the whole pvp experience which for the most part gives you very exciting experiences. 

 

I see all these pve people throwing hissy fits because pvp people ask some love. Love btw that was allready there but removed. The remarks saying that Rift is designed as pve and pvp has no business here is just plain ignorant.  But even then there is a simple solution, go roll on a pve server ffs! Problem solved.

 

You can't stand the heat .. get out of the ffing kitchen!

 

I too was looking forward to the world pvp and as it seems now, it kindy got gimped. I'm not happy with this but will keep an eye on what Trion does with this, after all it's still beta.

What you're suggesting Trion allows isn't hardcore PvP, it's pussycore ganking.

To me 'hardcore PvP' is when a player willing enters a PvP situation in which THEY are at a statistical disadvantage (e.g. lower level, lower numbers, etc) and attempt to overcome their opponent(s) using skill.

To me, it just sounds like you want the ability to run organised griefing sessions in which you have a significant advantage and aim to make life a misery for other players. But as RG puts it, you wanna fight someone, take it into the open world - take on that guy 5 levels higher than you as he's running back to town, not when he's trying to collect some xp.

You camp hotspots and any sane person without back-up will simply log and play Plants vs Zombies for a bit until you go away. And the community will simply deteriorate as a result.

Aryas

EVE.  Single shard.  Vast areas to be controlled.

Shadowbane.  Multiple shards.  Limited areas to be controlled.

A "side" could win in SB.  A "side" is unlikely ever to win in EVE.

Pre-Tram UO.  Groups of PKs would ride around griefing.  Groups of PKKs would ride after them and grief them in turn.

But the playerbase has changed since UO.

Both SB and EVE were designed as PvP games.  RIFT obviously was not.  Are there vast areas for players to build cities/forts/etc and to claim dominion over those areas?  Nope.  So why would somebody look for there to be such a thing?  Do you go into McDonald's looking for a bucket of popcorn chicken?  It has been obvious what kind of game RIFT was going to be.

If you are looking to take control of a server and drive away anybody smart enough not to be fodder for your kill machine...how exactly does that help you or help Trion?  Shadowbane is a good example of this.

Now if it is a case that you want some epic battles or the like - why not put out a challenge on the forums for the server?  Hey, we're going to be here - see if you can kick us from there.  You can create your own KotH challenge.  If nobody shows up, you get bragging rights - they were too afraid.  If they show up and you kick their butts, you get bragging rights - you destroyed them.  If they show up and wipe the floor with you, sure - you will need to reroll or move to another server never being able to show your face on the internet again... but hey, the other side will get to point and lol...lol...lol.

I hope you realise that the main difference between all the games that you mentioned and Rift is not that the former are PvP games, but that they are FACTIONLESS.

Originally posted by Aryas

Originally posted by Seffren

Originally posted by Rockgod99

Originally posted by smut

Originally posted by Rockgod99

Originally posted by smut

These changes that were suggested were just for PVP servers, not PVE servers.

well pvp servers arent meant to halt peoples progress and thats what the OP is suggesting.

to me a pvp server brings some type of danger element to a game world, it immerses me more.

I don't play on a pvp server so twenty asshats can camp my quest hub and stop me from handing in a quest.

Or forcing me out of a rare dungeon or warfront run so they could roll up on me in a large group.

I have no issue with pvp conflict out in the field, this is why i roll on pvp server. what i do have an issue with is someone messing with my progression. 

What "danger" will there be on a pvp server if people can just avoid combat all the time? I am not saying I agree with all the things in the original post, there is a few things I do not agree with it in it. But it does seem like alot of the changes made in the last beta make a PVP server just like a PvE server. If you want to PvE in peace, roll on a server made just for that aka a PvE server.

This same post on the Rift forums has 15+ pages of mainly overwhelming support, it seems PvPers over there want PvP to be like it was originally.

:edit I'm fine with noobs being safe in capitals and starter areas, but in contested zones you should never feel safe. if you want uninterrupted questing roll on a PvE server, THAT is what they are there for.

the danger is there when you out actually doing quests, traveling, clearing rifts, gathering or generally exploring. I dont see how quest hubs being safe so i could actually turn in quest would hinder that.

 

I'm sorry to say this RG, but you need to roll on a pve server and flag for pvp when you deem fit.

It's clear that you only want danger when you feel like it. This is controlled danger and does not belong on a pvp server.

 

This ladies and gentlemen is where the problem lies between pvp'ers and pve'ers. You need to very carefully decide what you are before choosing a server. If you choose pvp, you will get ganked, you will die and you will be frustrated at times. But this is part of the whole pvp experience which for the most part gives you very exciting experiences. 

 

I see all these pve people throwing hissy fits because pvp people ask some love. Love btw that was allready there but removed. The remarks saying that Rift is designed as pve and pvp has no business here is just plain ignorant.  But even then there is a simple solution, go roll on a pve server ffs! Problem solved.

 

You can't stand the heat .. get out of the ffing kitchen!

 

I too was looking forward to the world pvp and as it seems now, it kindy got gimped. I'm not happy with this but will keep an eye on what Trion does with this, after all it's still beta.

 

What you're suggesting Trion allows isn't hardcore PvP, it's pussycore ganking.

 

To me 'hardcore PvP' is when a player willing enters a PvP situation in which THEY are at a statistical disadvantage (e.g. lower level, lower numbers, etc) and attempt to overcome their opponent(s) using skill.

 

To me, it just sounds like you want the ability to run organised griefing sessions in which you have a significant advantage and aim to make life a misery for other players. But as RG puts it, you wanna fight someone, take it into the open world - take on that guy 5 levels higher than you as he's running back to town, not when he's trying to collect some xp.

 

You camp hotspots and any sane person without back-up will simply log and play Plants vs Zombies for a bit until you go away. And the community will simply deteriorate as a result.

 

Aryas

Why do you assume that when people want pvp they automatically are griefers?

I hate griefing. You can check my history on that if you don't believe me.

The only one griefing here is you with your over the top assumptions about pvp'ers in general and me specific.

I'll just leave it at that because I don't want to derail this thread in yet another pvp'ers are lowlife morons thread, which btw is total nonsense.

/signed

Originally posted by Xasapis

I hope you realise that the main difference between all the games that you mentioned and Rift is not that the former are PvP games, but that they are FACTIONLESS.

That is not quite true.  While at the time UO did not nor did SB, EVE does have Factional Warfare.  Are players limited by factions in EVE?  No, but the option is still there.  And what the OP is suggesting would be along the lines of what is very common in FW in EVE (or was, have not played in several months) - blob camping.  One side would have a numerical advantage and the other side would spin ships or JC and so something else.

You could make a FACTIONLESS PvE game, and it would not change the problem.  While on the other hand, you can make a FACTION PvP game, and it would not have the issues.  DAoC comes to mind as a game trumpeted for its RvR.

So I would maintain that a key difference between EVE+SB and RIFT would be the design factor - that of them being designed as PvP games.  UO obviously was not designed as a PvP game.  It was designed as a PvALL - it was a sandbox.  Both EVE+SB are/were sandbox hybrids.

I still think that WoW would have made a decent sandbox hybrid along the lines of EVE+SB.  It is kind of easy to overlay EVE's concept of security zones on top of Azeroth's map.  Increase the actual landmass so that there is room for player guilds to build kingoms beyond those safe and pseudo safe areas and it would take on that EVE+SB feel.   Sure, the quest aspect would have to change - but something more along the lines of what AO+SWG did would work.  Players would be able to fight for the key factions or they could form their own out in the wilds.  It actually would have been a World of Warcraft...

Originally posted by Seffren

Originally posted by Aryas
...snip...

Why do you assume that when people want pvp they automatically are griefers?

I hate griefing. You can check my history on that if you don't believe me.

The only one griefing here is you with your over the top assumptions about pvp'ers in general and me specific.

I'll just leave it at that because I don't want to derail this thread in yet another pvp'ers are lowlife morons thread, which btw is total nonsense.

It may have to do with the OP's OP.  Unfortunately, that is generally the face of PvP.  It is hard for many people to get by that image to see there is anything else there.

Because of numerical inequality, statistical inequality either because of levels, gear, or both, etc - most PvP is griefing.  Sure, as the side with more people, higher levels, better gear, etc - you may be having a blast shooting fish in a barrel with a grenade launcher... but that guy trying to get that last X of Y is just getting pissed off and thinking about quitting.  That is the PvP most people see outside of instanced PvP.

Very rarely is there the close fight where the loser will think that next time they might be the winner.  It is usually a gankfest that leaves the loser wondering what is the point...

EVE is factionless. If there is a minority of faction based guilds roleplaying faction warfare, I haven't encountered any in my relatively short stay (about 6 months).

DAoC has three factions, thus having a joker faction to minimise the imbalance impact. Aion tries to do the same with the Balaur NPC faction.

Factionless FFA PvP gameplay does not work in two sides faction games. Or at least, noone has managed to make it work so far. What the OP describes will probably condemn the game to share WAR's fate.

Originally posted by Xasapis

EVE is factionless. If there is a minority of faction based guilds roleplaying faction warfare, I haven't encountered any in my relatively short stay (about 6 months).

DAoC has three factions, thus having a joker faction to minimise the imbalance impact. Aion tries to do the same with the Balaur NPC faction.

 

Factionless FFA PvP gameplay does not work in two sides faction games. Or at least, noone has managed to make it work so far. What the OP describes will probably condemn the game to share WAR's fate.

You cannot say that it is factionless and then state there are factions.  The sky is clear, well - aside from that cloud.  It has factions, but it is not limited by factions.

It feels as if we are dicking about with superfluos terms here... the gist of what you are saying is that world PvP does not work in a two faction system.  I would not argue against that.  It is basically what I stated was the problem with SB.  A "side" could win.  As the various guilds formed alliances and the alliances were swallowed into larger alliances, you ended up with two "sides"... one would win, and then there was no point.  The area was too small to make the map easily controlled by a single alliance without it splintering apart.  Thus the inclusion of EVE as doing something right that SB missed out on.

I fail to see what that has to do with what I stated though - that the games were designed as PvP games while RIFT obviously was not?  RIFT being a two faction system is obviously part of how it was not designed as a PvP game... so why disagree by pointing out something that supports what was stated?

EVE has factions but serve only cosmetic purposes as far as 95% of the game is concerned. Fallen Earth is the same, it has 6 factions, they server cosmetic purposes, PvP is all about guild warfare.

Are we arguing here about games that lock you into a predetermined war side with games that offer faction for flavour purposes but don't lock you anywhere you don't want to be?

I'm arguing that the PvP rules that work in a factionless game does not work in one that locks you in a side. The OP is trying to impose PvP ruleset of a factionless game in a faction based MMO. Will it work? Probably not, so far past experience has been negative.

Originally posted by Xasapis

I'm arguing that the PvP rules that work in a factionless game does not work in one that locks you in a side. The OP is trying to impose PvP ruleset of a factionless game in a faction based MMO. Will it work? Probably not, so far past experience has been negative.

Which is why I am confused by why you disagreed with me...bah, does not matter.  It appears that aside from that confusion on that point, we are both saying the same thing - what the OP wants will not work.