Switch "Echo" zones to free for all zones

[Ralathar44]

6 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

Why don’t you really tell us what you think about PvP’ers instead of being so gracious and civil.

Honestly their comment was pretty civil.  Most gankers are scum bags.  Not all, but most.  Because most gankers primarily target only those who they think have no real chance to fight back, which is usually people sent to a PVP zone by a quest or badge, people who are much lower level, and people who are fighting mobs already.

And this is from someone who's played Mordred FFA server in Dark Age of Camelot, EQ 2 pvp servers, Age of Conan, Guild Wars 2, Archage, etc.  I'm a PVPer in games that do it decently and I have 20+ years of experience at it.  I have little to no respect for gankers and they trend heavily towards being substandard players who can't actually handle PVP against a capable opponent.  I'd say to date I've killed gankers more than they've killed me at a rate of about 3:1, not because I'm that good but because they are just that bad that they still often lose against a competent player even with all the advantages in their favor if that player is ready for them.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Ralathar44

[arcane]

8 minutes ago, Ralathar44 said:

Honestly their comment was pretty civil.  Most gankers are scum bags.  Not all, but most.  Because most gankers primarily target only those who they think have no real chance to fight back, which is usually people sent to a PVP zone by a quest or badge, people who are much lower level, and people who are fighting mobs already.

Since launch I have never met a PvP’er who refused to target anyone but PvE’ers. I’ve met plenty that don’t discriminate at all when deciding who to PvP, but that’s obviously not a bad thing.

 

Either way, none of it justifies calling your fellow players scumbags. And no the comment was not civil.

Edited August 12, 2020 by arcaneholocaust

[Ralathar44]

9 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

Since launch I have never met a PvP’er who refused to target anyone but PvE’ers. I’ve met plenty that don’t discriminate at all when deciding who to PvP, but that’s obviously not a bad thing.

 

Either way, none of it justifies calling your fellow players scumbags.

You're changing what I said into another argument you believe you can counter easier.  What you commented is not what I said.  Also I specifically mentioned gankers, which is not the same thing as a PvP'er.  Stop trying to redefine the subject as the original quote you replied to was about ganking.  Gankers like to think of themselves as PvP'ers but they're not :).  PvP requires at least two active participants/sides both with a reasonable chance of winning.  When one side has no real chance of winning it's not a fight anymore and not PvP.

Typically the thing gankers will do to target PvE players is regularly patrol past the locations they know said players are forced to go or traverse through for quests/badges.  Basically all of them claim they want to PVP, but usually when real PVP shows up and they no longer have the clear advantage they quickly log off or move to greener pastures after a few scuffles at most.  This happens time and time again in every game with FFA PVP or where PVE players get sent into PVP for quests.  It's incredibly predictable.  I'm one of those players who often hunts the hunters when they start harassing an area too much.  When they lose the advantage they disappear, taking their ball and going home.

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by Ralathar44

[arcane]

18 minutes ago, Ralathar44 said:

PvP requires at least two active participants/sides both with a reasonable chance of winning.  When one side has no real chance of winning it's not a fight anymore and not PvP.
 

PvP is any use of powers by a player against another player target in a PvP area. The player’s target consented to said PvP when they entered the zone or arena match. This has been established over and over whether you were listening or not. And, again, I don’t know of anyone who *only* engages with people that don’t fight back. I suspect those people don’t exist.

 

As far as I know, ganker is just a belittling slur for PvP’er that is typically used by people that resent being attackable in certain zones.

Edited August 12, 2020 by arcaneholocaust

[Ralathar44]

45 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

PvP is any use of powers by a player against another player target in a PvP area.

The rules are a bit more nuanced than that.  For example few would consider spawn camping PVP except people who spawn camp :D.  Few would consider level 50s killing level 1s in a level 1 zone PVP even though it meets your definition except, again, those doing it.  All those activities do is run players out of a server, which is why the idea of that being PVP has more or less gone away over the last 20 years.  PVP thrives still, FFA servers and "open PVP" servers letting high levels camp low levels do not, because it just devolves into people fighting folks who cannot defend themselves.

You can argue me all you want but people have spoken in a way much more important than online text, they chose their games/servers and where they spend their time.  They like PVP, they don't consider FFA/"Open PVP" to be that and thus even large games have like 1 token server, if that.  Smarter games are more like EVE or Archeage where players are never forced in dangerous areas but instead can choose to go there for high rewards with higher risk, but they can still obtain the same results in safer zones with slightly more time spent.  That's dramatically different from a quest or badge or gear forcing you to go into PVP because they cannot be done/completed/obtained anywhere else.

 

45 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

The player’s target consented to said PvP when they entered the zone or arena match

PVE players never consented to being forced into PVP zones for badges or quests.  Those are optional design decisions the player never had any choice over that dictate how they experience their PVE.  Saying they consented simply because they entered the zone is quite disingenuous.  If, for example, I locked half your powerset powers away until I forced you into 40 hours of PVP, under your comment I could say you consented to that.  But plainly the real answer is that no, the player did not consent to that and wouldn't want it.

Just like players can not consent to cash shops being added to a game after release.  "well you logged in didn't you, you consented!"

The concept of consent is a bit more complicated than a forced or coerced decision with rewards/prizes

 

45 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

And, again, I don’t know of anyone who *only* engages with people that don’t fight back. I suspect those people don’t exist.

Someone in a level 15 zone being ganked by a level 50 cannot fight back.  You can say technically they can fight back, but realistically and practically they cannot.  They are, at best, a speed bump.  If your odds of winning any given fight, with player skill being reasonably equal, is less than 15% then you cannot fight back.  It's not a fight, it's a one sided murder.  Similarly if I wait for a defender 10 levels lower than me to have 3 bosses on them and then it's not a fight.  In these cases it's just a gank.  No PVP occurred.

 

45 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

As far as I know, ganker is just a belittling slur for PvP’er that is typically used by people that resent being attackable in certain zones.

The term ganker isn't a slur, though gankers themselves are often viewed negatively for good reasons.  Gankers are people who's primary method of "PVP" involves attacking people in compromised states.  Mobs on them, low hp, low level, PVE players doing quests with little PVP experience, etc.  If able to roam in areas with players much weaker/lower level than them they will overwhelmingly choose that option.

They are not looking for any fights with other players, only easy kills that present as little challenge as possible.  Some gankers will try to fight to protect "their territory" so they can keep getting easy kills, but most will not and will run the moment the fight becomes more or less even....regardless of whether they are still winning or not.

Again, I've got 20 years of experience turning the tables on gankers, I understand them well.  Even if you're 100% going to lose a fight and you know it, if you can make them think you're going to win even for a few moments they will normally try to run.  They are not there to fight, they are there to gank, they are two entirely different mentalities.  These players are traditionally near useless in real PVP situations and tend to avoid them because they have very little real PVP experience or skills.  Ganking does not teach you the classes and how to fight them in a realistic scenario :).
 

Edited August 12, 2020 by Ralathar44

[arcane]

Yeah none of that is consistent with the GM’s definition of PvP. They’ve stated over and over that you consent to being a PvP target the moment you step into a PvP zone, read the dialogue box pop up, and choose to proceed in spite of the warning. We need to try to agree on basic definitions before just cutting right to insulting people.

[Greycat]

10 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

Yeah none of that is consistent with the GM’s definition of PvP. They’ve stated over and over that you consent to being a PvP target the moment you step into a PvP zone, read the dialogue box pop up, and choose to proceed in spite of the warning. We need to try to agree on basic definitions before just cutting right to insulting people.

Yeah, have to say Arcane has it right here.

 

You're given a very blatant "You've entered a PVP zone and may be attacked by other players." You're also given a 30 second countdown in which you're perfectly safe where you can decide to continue or "not consent" by turning around and exiting. They even removed an "I have to enter the zone even though I don't want to" issue when the zones were introduced, as the war zone contact was in the zone. THey were moved out. And now you don't even have to go see them.

 

Now, granted, some people may say they have a bad/slow connection and don't get that full 30 seconds, and I would not argue with the timer not kicking in until the player does something (move, type, activate a power) to indicate they are there - but you are given time to consent by staying or not consent (safely) by leaving.

 

It's frankly no different than consenting to PVP by entering a PVP match in the Arena. Going to a console, joining an event, then saying "I didn't want to PVP" would be silly. You took a deliberate action to enter a clearly marked PVP environment. (This is, frankly, one of the things I *like* about COH PVP.  You *can't,* for instance, just want to do a "get 20 moth wings" quest and have someone from another faction somehow drop into the area and kill you. You have to go to very deliberate areas, set off from the rest of the world, get warned that it's a PVP area and you can be attacked, and agree to continue by waiting out the timer and *not leaving.*)

Edited August 12, 2020 by Greycat

[Ralathar44]

15 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

Yeah none of that is consistent with the GM’s definition of PvP. They’ve stated over and over that you consent to being a PvP target the moment you step into a PvP zone, read the dialogue box pop up, and choose to proceed in spite of the warning. We need to try to agree on basic definitions before just cutting right to insulting people.

And the developers of Fallout 76 told us it'd have "16 times the detail" and "it just works".  Peter Molyneux made all sorts of grandiose claims to the point he basically destroyed his own career despite being one of the main folks of several highly successful IPs.  Half of the AAA game developers told us single player games and horror games were dead for 10 years and only recanted because of how much indies were crushing it in those genres.

If you want to look at a single individual you can find whatever message you want backed by some developer or publisher or GM or etc.  But none of them actually determine the realistic state of how things are now.  Our collective interest and opinions, and more importantly how we spend our time/money, as the gaming community does.  Similarly, we're the ones that made early access and "live service games" such a big deal.  The industry is only responding to our money.  Developers are just making decision based on the current ecosystem decided by gamer interest/spending.


If badges are to be collected and quests are sending you to an area as a PVE player, you did not choose that.  You were only warned what it would entail.  You did not consent to it entailing that in the first place.  ESO has the same problem with world completion and skill points pushing you into PVP zones.  I like PVP, others don't and I don't like them being forced into it for PVE objectives.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Ralathar44

[Greycat]

4 minutes ago, Ralathar44 said:

If badges are to be collected and quests are sending you to an area as a PVE player, you did not choose that.  You were only warned what it would entail.  You did not consent to it entailing that in the first place. 

... this is kind of like saying "I wanted to go skydiving, put on the parachute, got in the plane, but I didn't consent to falling through the air!"

[Ralathar44]

7 minutes ago, Greycat said:

... this is kind of like saying "I wanted to go skydiving, put on the parachute, got in the plane, but I didn't consent to falling through the air!"

PVE objectives in PVP zones will always be viewed this way.  Because you're forcing players into playstyles they don't want to embrace their own playstyle.  If it was just "you get 25% more exp from mobs in a PVP zone" it's one thing.  But when it's exclusive badges, gear, and achievements that don't actually require fighting other players it's different.  ESO gets away with it because they have a LUDICROUS amount of content :P.  Completing even one of the 3 alliances fully takes hundreds of hours for a new player.  And that's baseline game without all the DLC and Expansions.

EDIT:  This has more to do with "player types".  Stuff like "killer", "achiever", "explorer", "socializer", etc.  Each player has things they enjoy and don't enjoy doing that are broadly grouped into types of players.  When you force players of one type to do activities designed for players of another type to get the things they want....people get upset and frustrated.  It's really that simple.

The fact I personally do all of them makes it easy for me, but it doesn't make those other folks irrelevant or their complaints invalid.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Ralathar44

[Greycat]

Thing is, there is absolutely nothing in the PVP zones required to finish PVE content. There are things "nice to have," sure. But nothing required.

 

As mentioned, the game *used* to force you in (and I will use that wording because it is accurate) when the PVP zones were introduced. You *had* to see the warzone contacts - they'd show up without any other contacts, basically blocking you - and they were in the PVP zones. And when they were released, connections in general were slower - so people could actually time out of that 30 seconds before they could do anything.

 

In response, since this could actually lead to "non consensual" PVP, those contacts were moved outside of the zone. And now, you don't even get a popup about them.  You can notice and click on them outside, but that's all they are now.

 

So, honestly, right now I can't agree there's any non-consensual PVP in the game... unless someone's still on dialup and can't make it through with that timer.

 

That said? There's so little actual *risk* of PVP that complaining about it - barring being on the "unofficial PVP server - is sort of like complaining about the risk of being hit with a meteor. And not just a meteor, but specifically one that's at least 1.5 km wide, spinning counterclockwise and coming in from the northeast.

[Ralathar44]

7 minutes ago, Greycat said:

Thing is, there is absolutely nothing in the PVP zones required to finish PVE content. There are things "nice to have," sure. But nothing required.

 

As mentioned, the game *used* to force you in (and I will use that wording because it is accurate) when the PVP zones were introduced. You *had* to see the warzone contacts - they'd show up without any other contacts, basically blocking you - and they were in the PVP zones. And when they were released, connections in general were slower - so people could actually time out of that 30 seconds before they could do anything.

 

In response, since this could actually lead to "non consensual" PVP, those contacts were moved outside of the zone. And now, you don't even get a popup about them.  You can notice and click on them outside, but that's all they are now.

 

So, honestly, right now I can't agree there's any non-consensual PVP in the game... unless someone's still on dialup and can't make it through with that timer.

 

That said? There's so little actual *risk* of PVP that complaining about it - barring being on the "unofficial PVP server - is sort of like complaining about the risk of being hit with a meteor. And not just a meteor, but specifically one that's at least 1.5 km wide, spinning counterclockwise and coming in from the northeast.

I honestly agree with you regarding the contacts, that and the utterly dead PVP population have made the entire issue well....a non-issue.  Now the only thing gated is badge hunting.  Time spent badges are easy enough to game without risk, but exploration badges and pill box badges are decidedly PVE content nestled in a PVP zone.  In the grand scheme of things I'd call it utterly irrelevant, HOWEVER keep in mind what the context of this thread is!  They are trying to turn more PVE zones, content, and badges into zones other players can attack them.  So in wider context of the thread it's not about the size of the problem but instead about the overall idea of converting badge hunting and PVE trips into PVP areas.

Realistically it'd play out about the same.   PVP zones would remain dead and badge hunters would be forced into PVP zones to do PVE objectives and occasionally get ganked.  PVP would remain dead and badge hunters would get more annoyed.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Ralathar44

[arcane]

If your playstyle mandates you get all badges, and some badges require consenting to PvP... I’d recommend either buckling up or rethinking your playstyle.

[Ralathar44]

3 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

If your playstyle mandates you get all badges, and some badges require consenting to PvP... I’d recommend either buckling up or rethinking your playstyle.

Remember, this is those player archetypes I was talking about.  Exploration type players like to explore and collect.  But they often don't like PVP.  Hence cognitive dissonance is created when you force them into PVP to explore and collect.  Player types are pretty well studied at this point thanks to MTG and early MMORPGs.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Ralathar44

[Greycat]

5 minutes ago, Ralathar44 said:

I honestly agree with you regarding the contacts, that and the utterly dead PVP population have made the entire issue well....a non-issue.  Now the only thing gated is badge hunting.  Time spent badges are easy enough to game without risk, but exploration badges and pill box badges are decidedly PVE content nestled in a PVP zone.  In the grand scheme of things I'd call it utterly irrelevant, HOWEVER keep in mind what the context of this thread is!  They are trying to turn more PVE zones, content, and badges into zones other players can attack them.  So in wider context of the thread it's not about the size of the problem but instead about the overall idea of converting badge hunting and PVE trips into PVP areas.

Realistically it'd play out about the same.   PVP zones would remain dead and badge hunters would be forced into PVP zones to do PVE objectives and occasionally get ganked.  PVP would remain dead and badge hunters would get more annoyed.

Well, I'm replying to the general PVP discussion, to be honest.

 

Realistically, the suggestion to change these zones won't happen, at least on homecoming. There's no desire for it, and badge-hunters have a second, fairly large and vocal community (RP - enough to *also* have its own "unofficial" server, after all, and able to be assumed large given live-Virtue typically being one of the higest pop, highest activity servers) who would rip the faces off anyone wanting to do this to crash RP events. 🙂

 

If someone wanted to do this? They'd pretty much just have to set their own server up.

[Ralathar44]

3 minutes ago, Greycat said:

Well, I'm replying to the general PVP discussion, to be honest.

 

Realistically, the suggestion to change these zones won't happen, at least on homecoming. There's no desire for it, and badge-hunters have a second, fairly large and vocal community (RP - enough to *also* have its own "unofficial" server, after all, and able to be assumed large given live-Virtue typically being one of the higest pop, highest activity servers) who would rip the faces off anyone wanting to do this to crash RP events. 🙂

 

If someone wanted to do this? They'd pretty much just have to set their own server up.

Im totally down for it if it's own server.  I feel it's fundamentally different to opt in at time of server choice vs opting in 20 hours into a game because of a mission or discovery that PVE content you want to complete is hidden in a PVP zone.  FFA servers and open PVP servers are up front consent before you ever start, the way it should be.  You should have an idea of what you're potentially going to experience as your type of player before you ever roll a character.

But, well, those types of servers don't tend to get much traction even in PVP games.  So I've come to the conclusion after 20 years tat PVP players are just general not interested in FFA or open world PVP.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Ralathar44

[arcane]

6 minutes ago, Ralathar44 said:

Remember, this is those player archetypes I was talking about.  Exploration type players like to explore and collect.  But they often don't like PVP.  Hence cognitive dissonance is created when you force them into PVP to explore and collect.  Player types are pretty well studied at this point thanks to MTG and early MMORPGs.

Right, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re going to need to pick one. Vilifying PvP’ers isn’t going to change the fact that that’s the badgers’ dilemma to solve.

[Ralathar44]

3 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

Right, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re going to need to pick one. Vilifying PvP’ers isn’t going to change the fact that that’s the badgers’ dilemma to solve.

It's not anyone's dilemma to solve in THIS game.  PVP is dead :D.  Problem is de facto "solved".  Badgers by and large won this battle handily in COH as the other poster mentioned.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Ralathar44

[arcane]

1 minute ago, Ralathar44 said:

It's not anyone's dilemma to solve in THIS game.  PVP is dead :D.  Problem is de facto "solved".  Badgers by and large won this battle handily in COH as the other poster mentioned.

It’s obviously still something of a dilemma or else Bentley would have nobody to call a scumbag.

[ShardWarrior]

22 minutes ago, Greycat said:

Realistically, the suggestion to change these zones won't happen, at least on homecoming. There's no desire for it, and badge-hunters have a second, fairly large and vocal community (RP - enough to *also* have its own "unofficial" server, after all, and able to be assumed large given live-Virtue typically being one of the higest pop, highest activity servers) who would rip the faces off anyone wanting to do this to crash RP events. 🙂

Personally, I would say there is no need for it more so than no desire for it.  Were the existing PVP zones overflowing with multiple instances, I might consider this a good suggestion.  However the lower level PVP zones (at least from what I see on Torchbearer and Excelsior) are totally empty.  RV is really the only zone I see people in on occasion.

 

This is more a supply looking for a demand instead of the other way around.

[Ferrus_Xeno]

24 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

It’s obviously still something of a dilemma or else Bentley would have nobody to call a scumbag.

I think you should just get over the comment (the scumbag) instead of trying to pick a fight.  We are all here to have fun in a game we love.

[Ralathar44]

20 minutes ago, Ferrus_Xeno said:

I think you should just get over the comment (the scumbag) instead of trying to pick a fight.  We are all here to have fun in a game we love.

Pretty much.  I have a negative opinion of gankers from a "it's PVP!" angle.  But as far as "this is how I like to play" I don't really have a problem with it.  They are playing the game as it's designed.  It's just PVP as much as a Smart Car is a Mercedes.  Technically correct, the best kind of correct, but practically and realistically incorrect.  And in games with actual real core open world objectives like Guild Wars 2, Dark Age of Camelot, and Elder Scrolls Online they serve a vital purpose in the overall scheme by picking off stragglers to disrupt reinforcement lines, forcing people to group up and coordinate or be REKT by classes they have no chance against. (outside of the rare anti-gank hunter like me when I deign to pursue that angle)

But when you put a ganker vs traditional PVP players, they just tend to fail more often than not because they never learned how to FIGHT...they learned only how to gank.  That's not something that tends to be true the other way around.  And truly when it comes to server population open PVP and FFA servers fare very poorly in interest level relative to other types, usually outnumbered even by RP servers.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Ralathar44

[Darmian]

Free For All Zones?  As in PvP Free For All Zones?  That's never going to fly.  Free For All Zones in the same way that current PVE zones are, like the Echo zones already are?  Sure. (Well, they already are level wise, obviously Red and Gold can't visit them.)

 

Results of some pondering on this:

I think if you want to do something with Echo Galaxy City then Ouro is the answer IMO. Make it an actual level capped "Time Travel Zone" wherein there are missions attempting to warn the residents of the impending meteor strike.  Of course they fail, but what else is discovered along the way? Link it to BAB in present Atlas even, making him a contact as opposed to a trainer because frankly no one really trains with him.  Every now and then I suppose but mostly not.  "Hey, $name, don't I know you from somewhere? Did we meet in Galaxy City?"

 

Interesting discussion on PvP but on HC it is dead outside RV on Indom.  So reclaim Bloody Bay as a proper active zone for Redside. Let Arachnos bring Warburg to heel, more plots to solidify the Rogue Isles since Red Widow returned and poked Recluse into being a "normal" tyrant as opposed to whatever he was turning into.  Both zones are actually physically fun and interesting, but it gets tedious creeping around them.

 

Siren's Call?  God knows.

 

The other Echo Zones?  I'll need to ponder on those, though I've always preferred the angle of the ship crash in the Rikti Crash Site to the Rikti War Zone.  Of course in an MSR you'd just fall off all the time!

Edited August 23, 2020 by Darmian

[Greycat]

13 hours ago, Darmian said:

 

Results of some pondering on this:

I think if you want to do something with Echo Galaxy City then Ouro is the answer IMO. Make it an actual level capped "Time Travel Zone" wherein there are missions attempting to warn the residents of the impending meteor strike.  Of course they fail, but what else is discovered along the way? Link it to BAB in present Atlas even, making him a contact as opposed to a trainer because frankly no one really trains with him.  Every now and then I suppose but mostly not.  "Hey, $name, don't I know you from somewhere? Did we meet in Galaxy City?"

 

Interesting, and I wouldn't mind something *interesting* being done with Galaxy.

 

As far as BAB... he's a very convenient trainer, since you come out from there if you run Officer Fields' arc, and he's right near Thiery. Frankly I find myself leveling near there a good bit early on. (Not everyone DFBs to death.)

 

 

13 hours ago, Darmian said:

Interesting discussion on PvP but on HC it is dead outside RV on Indom.  So reclaim Bloody Bay as a proper active zone for Redside. Let Arachnos bring Warburg to heel, more plots to solidify the Rogue Isles since Red Widow returned and poked Recluse into being a "normal" tyrant as opposed to whatever he was turning into.  Both zones are actually physically fun and interesting, but it gets tedious creeping around them.

 

Siren's Call?  God knows.

While we don't need *more* PVP zones, we don't need to have them taken away, either.  That said, I would not argue with a *copy of* Warburg being added to Redside - it's chock full of things that would interest redside, lorewise. And a *copy of* Bloody Bay (with inactive meteors) likely as a coop zone - both since there's presence there on both sides and both would want to do some investigation, as well as giving a location (besides... what, one mission on both sides? Two?) to get the Shivan defeat badges.

 

Siren's call? A *copy* of it blueside, since it's blueside events that made it (and I still see "oh, there's a major, hostile enemy presence IN ONE OF OUR CITIES, we'll just let it sit there" as pants-on-head stupid. Yes, I feel that way about the Arachnos base in Faultline, too. At least in Mercy you get to kick the other side out.)

[Darmian]

57 minutes ago, Greycat said:

Interesting, and I wouldn't mind something *interesting* being done with Galaxy.

 

As far as BAB... he's a very convenient trainer, since you come out from there if you run Officer Fields' arc, and he's right near Thiery. Frankly I find myself leveling near there a good bit early on. (Not everyone DFBs to death.)

 

 

While we don't need *more* PVP zones, we don't need to have them taken away, either.  That said, I would not argue with a *copy of* Warburg being added to Redside - it's chock full of things that would interest redside, lorewise. And a *copy of* Bloody Bay (with inactive meteors) likely as a coop zone - both since there's presence there on both sides and both would want to do some investigation, as well as giving a location (besides... what, one mission on both sides? Two?) to get the Shivan defeat badges.

 

Siren's call? A *copy* of it blueside, since it's blueside events that made it (and I still see "oh, there's a major, hostile enemy presence IN ONE OF OUR CITIES, we'll just let it sit there" as pants-on-head stupid. Yes, I feel that way about the Arachnos base in Faultline, too. At least in Mercy you get to kick the other side out.)

Well, BAB could be a contact AND a trainer, depending on who introduces you to him, rather like Twinshot sending you to Ms Liberty.  

 

Copies of the zones?  That works for me. Perhaps a thing on the Transport hub that says "Bloody Bay PVE" and "Bloody Bay PVP" and choose one, like choosing North or South on some zones presently. Plus an entire new set of exploration badges so badgers will still go to the PVP versions 🙂  And I mentioned elsewhere that I'd increase the power of the nukes a bit, make them equivalent to what they were back pre Incarnate as a "must have" item so people like myself aren't just getting them to have the Rocketman/Rocketwoman badge but actually want those temp powers.

 

I'm not anti PVP, I just don't do it mostly. I am primarily interested in narrative and Warburg, or Bloody Bay at least should have been reclaimed by the Rogue Isles by now, and as you say, the presence of an enemy base in Siren's Call is ridiculous.  Imagine if Longbow came out one morning or whatever to find that Arachnos had gone, just withdrawn completely from Siren's Call (to move all their troops to reclaiming Warburg or Bloody Bay perhaps!), there's a mystery.  Why are they gone?  Do they know something we don't?  Is there a giant bomb under the area and we're just waiting?  AAAGHH!!

 

Edited August 23, 2020 by Darmian