Dear Admins: "Nemesis" Theory and a Proposal for the Future of PvP

[DarionLeonidas]

Way back in Live, well before CoV or the Arenas, we used to discuss villainous characters. Back then, I was one of many who proposed an "alignment" system where the nature of chosen missions would define a character's... well, character.

 

Along came CoV, and Alignment missions, and the promise of an awesome PvP system which would allow Supergroup base raids for items of great power, and true interactive rivalry.

 

Well... that didn't turn out quite as planned.

 

Many complained that the universal buffs from the Items of Power would imbalance the game, somehow. But the truth was, the real flaw in base raiding was the fact that it cost players a LOT to build a good, defensible base, and the elements in that base which could be destroyed in a raid would cost more to be replaced.

 

As a result, PvP in CoX dwindled down into, and has remained, sadly limited to exercises in griefing players who go after badges in nearly-deserted PvP zones, or bouts of duels which themselves gain nothing but badges.

 

But one idea I did put forth never did come to fruition, and I'm offering it up again here in hopes the Admins will at least consider giving it a try.
 

That idea is based on the classical "nemesis" theory that any power brings upon itself the rise of a contrary power which opposes or may even destroy it. For the heroes of Greek myth -- the natural parents of today's comic book superheroes -- it allowed the match ups of Herakles with the monsters of his Labors, of Cadmus, the first dragonslayer, even Zeus and his family against Tython and the whole Titanomachy.

 

In comics, it is the concept of the Arch-Enemy.

 

Every comic book character has a "rogues gallery" of opponents. That one bad (or good) guy or gal who shows up at the worst time to thwart their bank robbery or blow up the orphanage they are about to dedicate. We all know who these characters are, so I won't list them here.

 

Instead, I propose we become them.

 

I imagine it working like this (at least at the start; it could no doubt be improved by the Admins and player input):

 

1. A player gets a Safeguard or Mayhem Mission.

 

2. If they don’t already have a team, they assemble one; this can be through the LFG mode, if desired.

 

3. Once they have as many teammates as they wish, they decide whether or not they want this Safeguard/Mayhem to be eligible for PvP. If so, click a button that sends a Message in the "Looking for Game" channel (or PvP, or General, or whatever whatever). The Message reads: "(Character X) is starting a Level ## Safeguard (or Mayhem) Mission in (Zone) in three minutes. Those wishing to oppose this mission click HERE." In game terms, this would be appear as “ALERT! PPD has received a tip that the Crimson Commissar (level 50 Incarnate) is preparing to rob the Peregrine Island Bank! Can anyone stop him?” … or something much better written by the Admins.

 

3a. If you click it as leader of an existing Team, it will tell you if you are outnumbered by Character X's team or if you outnumber them. If the numbers can’t be evened up by the time the mission starts, the smaller team will receive minor buffs depending solely on the disparity in the number of opposing teammates; Archetypes and Powers will not be considered. Your team Leader will be exemplared or sidekicked to match the Level of Character X.

 

4. Nothing else in the mission will change; side missions, destructible objects, all will be available to either side, meaning teams can split up into smaller elements or stay together as one overwhelming force.

 

5. If the robbery is thwarted, the Heroes win. If the bank is robbed, the Villains win. Any time left on the game clock can be used for side missions or badge hunting or continued PvP.

 

Now comes the Arch-Enemy part.

 

If the player who originally held the mission failed that mission – i.e., if the bank was robbed in a Safeguard Mission, or the bank was kept from being robbed in a Mayhem mission – they may declare the leader, and ONLY the leader of the opposing team to be their leading character’s “Arch Enemy”. If the opposing player accepts this status, each player receives a free “title” which states [Arch Enemy: (Character Name)]

 

The “Arch Enemy” title only applies between those two characters; other characters in the players’ inventories have no relationship to each other unless and until they, too, face off in opposed Safeguard or Mayhem missions.

 

After that, ANY time an Arch Enemy accepts a Safeguard/Mayhem mission, OR enters a PvP Zone, their “Arch Enemy” is notified, and in the case of Safeguard or Mayhem missions, the Arch Enemy has priority in opposing them over any other team.

 

Arch Enemies who battle each other receive double benefits – Influence/Infamy, XP, whatever – and credit toward any new badges the system might warrant creating.

 

Arch Enemies can still team up in Co-Op Zones, normally. Even in the comics, such team-ups occur if the threat is sufficiently dire.

 

Arch Enemy status remains in effect until the characters face each other again, either in a Safeguard or Mayhem mission or in a PvP zone. Arenas don’t count! This is real, hateful rivalry, here, not a schoolyard grudge match! If the characters fight one another again, they may dissolve their Arch Enemy status at the end of the mission, win or lose.

 

 AFTERTHOUGHT: SUPERGROUP BASE RAIDS

 

Assuming the biggest objection to SG Base Raids for Items of Power was the cost of repairing raid damage to said bases, this is an easy fix; just let the base regenerate back to its full pre-raid state over a short time; 24 hours, 12 hours, ten minutes,  whatever. And lost Items of Power or Arch Enemy status remain in effect. The Item of Power would have a new home, and the rivalry off arch enemies isn’t likely to be forgiven after an attack on one’s home.

 

 

AFTER-AFTERTHOUGHT THOUGHT: "HOME" ZONES

 

Strictly a "quality of life" idea, here: During character creation, a player may choose a "home" zone, that part of Paragon City or the Rogue Isles where the character is from or considers "home". Any missions the character takes in their "home town" count toward a "Homefield Advantage" bade, which gives them a minor (5%) buff to all abilities, XP and Influence/Infamy earned there. Only Paragon City and Rogue Isles locations would count, so players with otherworldly origins or Praetorians don't get shut out of the benefit. A Day Job Badge might be a single charge of "Radio Back Up" when conducting missions in that zone.

 

Anyway, these are my proposals. I know this post is long, but it’s mainly for the Admins.

 

I hope you’ll consider it.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by DarionLeonidas
Fixed typo

[Rudra]

Arch-enemy/Nemesis thought: Interesting idea, but I don't see it as viable. Mayhems start with only 15 minutes and players fighting it out will eat up a lot of time, Likely failing the mission. Safeguards have a bit of a buffer zone, but once the NPC villain breaks into the vault, there is no timer. The NPC runs to the escape point and causes the mission to fail. Again, having other players whose sole purpose is to fight you will pretty well guarantee failure of the actual mission. Especially since they can simply protect the NPC villain to force mission failure. (Teleport Other NPC to safety anyone?) Come up with a new mission type for this thought, and then ask the devs for implementation.

 

Supergroup base raids: I really like the idea of regenerating bases if base raids are re-implemented. Base raids would still need to be coordinated between the two groups, so those of us that don't want our bases trashed, even if regeneration were active, can still not bother.

 

Home zones: There has been a lot of chatter of the game being too easy. (Players like me disagree, but I digress.) Giving players an additional bonus, however minor, is probably going to cause another argument. (Also, what are the chances of those same players choosing an incarnate zone as home?) Maybe take your single charge summon power and make it applicable to the home zone exclusively instead of a buff to powers? It would apply to any instanced mission in that zone as well, but only in that zone. And you would need to be logged off in your home zone for at least 4 hours to get it, up to a single charge.

[The_Warpact]

As much as love the idea of doing base raids again, with the current base construction system being the way it is it wouldn't work. 

There was a thread about this awhile back and it was explained in greater detail than I can explain. 

 

 

 

[TheZag]

I would enjoy an option for a real meyhem/safeguard mission with players on both sides.  Some of it looks like it would depend on people being online for the arch enemy thing to work though.  And just dumping players on both sides wont work for the current versions of the missions,  it would need some amount of rebalancing.

 

Base pvp on the other hand doesnt work anymore.  Not that they want it or dont,  it actually doesnt work anymore.  The pathing beacons were a huge source of base lag and were removed from super bases so they could become more then just a few square rooms with hardly any design elements.  Pets cant path find in super bases anymore.  Summon a pet on your MM, controller or dominator and they just stand around.  They wont follow you.  And more then just those 3 types have pets.  Storm summoning tornado,  voltaic sentinel,  lore pets,  patron pets - all cant path find.  Base pvp will probably never come back for current super bases.

 

Your best bet for base pvp is to convince the devs to implement a second base for SGs that is built with pvp compliant rules and contain pathing beacons.  They would be ye olde thyme designs with square rooms and the bare essentials in design.

[PeregrineFalcon]

First of all, I'm not really a PvPer. I used to play head-to-head FPS games until cheating became commonplace. And while I normally dislike PvP in MMOs, and I hate PvP in CoH, I actually enjoyed PvP on certain classes in SWTOR and Guild Wars 2.

 

I really think the Cryptic developers blew a great chance to make PvP an important part of this game. And an experience that even people who wouldn't normally play PvP might get into.

 

The idea of the head-to-head bank missions is a great idea and, not to detract from OP, but something that's been brought up repeatedly since CoV first launched. If things had been properly balanced so that TTK on all AT's was reasonable, and mezzes could not be of long duration on players no matter how they are stacked, PvP would be slow-paced enough that most people could get into it. Other MMOs accomplish this, CoH could have as well.

 

Instead, Cryptic first chose to go the route of making everything ridiculously unbalanced. Fast paced in some cases while frustratingly slow in others. Most AT's could be two-shot by some AT's and/or perma-held by others, while other AT's were nearly useless in PvP. Then, because it was too late to fix that, they decided to split how powers function and stack in PvP. This only made things worse because now your character functions completely differently in PvP than it does in the world that you're used to. So you put hundreds of hours into a playing a character, learning how to play it well, and then all of that experience is completely useless the moment you step into a PvP zone.

 

And don't even get me started on how Cryptic f****d over bases and base builders.

 

PvP is it's own thing now. Base raids are never going to happen, as Zag said, and if the devs want to create PvP bank missions for the PvPers that's great. But please don't think that non-PvPers are going to even consider playing them at this late date.

[DarionLeonidas]

1 hour ago, Rudra said:

Arch-enemy/Nemesis thought: Interesting idea, but I don't see it as viable. Mayhems start with only 15 minutes and players fighting it out will eat up a lot of time, Likely failing the mission.

Easily fixed.
Put more time on the clock for Arch Enemy versions of Safeguard/Mayhem missions.

[DarionLeonidas]

46 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

First of all, I'm not really a PvPer.

...

 

PvP is it's own thing now. Base raids are never going to happen, as Zag said, and if the devs want to create PvP bank missions for the PvPers that's great. But please don't think that non-PvPers are going to even consider playing them at this late date.

I'm not a PvP'er, either, and a big part of the reason is that there's no point to it.

 

As for Base Raids never going to happen, nothing is ever going to happen if nobody ever tries to implement them.

[Rudra]

33 minutes ago, DarionLeonidas said:

Easily fixed.
Put more time on the clock for Arch Enemy versions of Safeguard/Mayhem missions.

More time doesn't fix the Safeguard. As soon as the NPC villain and helper(s) destroy the vault door, they are off to the exit. Unless you don't move from the mission entrance, the vault break in will start after a set time or when you near the bank, whichever part happens first. Extending time on the Mayhem should work fine, as long as the Nemesis player team is not allowed respawn or return access to the mission to keep the mission holder (and/or team) from getting anything done. Which I don't see as feasible to implement. Extending time on a Safeguard where the NPC villain is running for his/her exit point and can be moved to that destination with Teleport Other to ensure mission fails does nothing.

 

(And it doesn't even have to be the actual villain that gets to the exit point in a Safeguard. If any mob from inside the bank gets to the exit point, the mission is failed.)

Edited January 27, 2022 by Rudra
Edited to add last thoughts( ).

[Glacier Peak]

Items of Power were great reasons/incentives to base raid. The unique ones especially so. I get the thrust of the argument you are making, there are no incentives to conduct PvP in this game in its current form aside from player-driven events/community initiatives. 

[Crasical]

Competitive Mayhem Mission has always been a really cool concept, but balancing them is tricky. How do you integrate the stuff that makes Mayhems and safeguards cool into a PvP environment?

Though doing a more dangerous bank heist does seem a great way to introduce a long-duration temp boost like the one you get from completing DFB or the Dark Astoria arcs as a reward, maybe as something that villains are trying to steal.

[Rudra]

How about a new Bank Robbery mission? Not a Mayhem. Not a Safeguard. No timer. The villain(s) has/have to reach the bank, break into the vault, get the glowie, and escape to however entered the zone. The hero(es) have to stop the robbery. Like an arena match, whenever a player is defeated, (s)he can spectate the rest of the mission, but not return. Environment can still be destructible, just have to re-use the existing Mayhem/Safeguard maps.

 

Could also be duplicated for the hostage side mission, except the hostage is the mission. Just start the villain(s) at the hostage at the end of the map, and the hero(es) have to save the hostage. If the villain(s) find(s) an unguarded route and escape(s) with the hostage or defeats the hero(es), villain(s) win(s). The hero(es) win if the villain(s) is/are defeated. Other objective oriented PvP missions could also be introduced. Either through the arena or through the broadcast alert in the OP. If no response within a set timer, then the mission does not load.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Rudra
Edited to add... a lot of variables....

[Glacier Peak]

Man these ideas are sounding really familiar 🤔 

[PeregrineFalcon]

4 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:

Man these ideas are sounding really familiar 🤔 

Yeah. We're basically repeating the same ideas that we posted on the retail forums back in 2007 & 2008. They didn't care enough to do anything about it then, probably because Jack had already cut the CoH dev team down to a skeleton crew and had started work on Champions.

 

And the current dev team probably just doesn't have the resources to do something like this. Especially since they'd have probably have to completely rebalance PvP in order to get more than 10 people to play these missions.

[Glacier Peak]

14 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Yeah. We're basically repeating the same ideas that we posted on the retail forums back in 2007 & 2008. They didn't care enough to do anything about it then, probably because Jack had already cut the CoH dev team down to a skeleton crew and had started work on Champions.

 

And the current dev team probably just doesn't have the resources to do something like this. Especially since they'd have probably have to completely rebalance PvP in order to get more than 10 people to play these missions.

Oh you don't say. I'm either misrembering or getting two things mixed up. I've had a few PvP suggestions myself, but the toughest conundrum to resolve is the participation aspect. If a player doesn't have anyone to play against, it's not PvP. Not that this game mechanic is at that point, heck I can find others who are interested in PvP as frequently as I can find folks interested in roleplaying, base building, AE testing/ content play thru, power leveling, or really any other game mechanic. But the robustness of the population is directly related to its success. You can't fight yourself! (I mean you can, if you dual box for badges or something).

[PeregrineFalcon]

1 hour ago, Glacier Peak said:

I've had a few PvP suggestions myself, but the toughest conundrum to resolve is the participation aspect.

Correct. Most games address this by first making PvP fun and balanced. Then by offering PvP dailies or special loot that only drops in PvP or minigames that only happen in PvP zones.

 

CoH does the last 2 of the 4. SWTOR does all 4 and even now people PvP. Heck, I used to PvP in SWTOR. GW2 does all 4 and I will often get the WvW dailies when I'm playing GW2. But for some reason the retail devs could never crack #1, making PvP fun and balanced. And now most of the people who play CoH are just not PvPers.

 

Unless the current dev team is willing and able to completely rewrite the game mechanics in PvP zones that's just not going to change. But you know what's even worse than that? At this late stage even if they did that and made CoH PvP the most balanced and enjoyable PvP in the entire MMO industry, it probably wouldn't matter.

[Solvernia]

6 hours ago, DarionLeonidas said:

exercises in griefing players who go after badges in nearly-deserted PvP zones

 

 

It's not griefing to PVP people in a PVP zone

[Rudra]

3 minutes ago, Solvernia said:

 

It's not griefing to PVP people in a PVP zone

How some players do it, it is. If you stalk a player and wait for him/her to be embroiled in a boss fight before you pop in to AS or mez him/her then watch the boss finish him/her, you are griefing.

[Glacier Peak]

1 hour ago, Rudra said:

How some players do it, it is. If you stalk a player and wait for him/her to be embroiled in a boss fight before you pop in to AS or mez him/her then watch the boss finish him/her, you are griefing.

That's a hard no, that is incorrect. And just to be clear, that's not my word, that is based on the Code of Conduct. If you can point to a spot in the Code of Conduct where it says what you considering griefing is actually griefing, then I'll accept that. When a player goes to a PvP zone, they accept the conditions of they may be attacked, defeated, and otherwise be engaged in the PvP mechanics of this game.

[Aurora_Girl]

I would love for this. 

 

Bonus points for use of "Titanomachy."

[Rudra]

37 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:

That's a hard no, that is incorrect. And just to be clear, that's not my word, that is based on the Code of Conduct. If you can point to a spot in the Code of Conduct where it says what you considering griefing is actually griefing, then I'll accept that. When a player goes to a PvP zone, they accept the conditions of they may be attacked, defeated, and otherwise be engaged in the PvP mechanics of this game.

If they were actually fighting you? Trying to defeat you even if you were already engaged with a boss? I would agree. It would be frustrating, but still expected PvP. If they are trying to get the mob to win? They just stand there occasionally throwing an attack to further weaken you if you start rebounding or another hold if you recover from the mez, not even trying to take you down, just let the mob finish you? That is not PvP. That is intentional griefing. Regardless, this is a tangent to the topic.

[Glacier Peak]

2 minutes ago, Rudra said:

If they were actually fighting you? Trying to defeat you even if you were already engaged with a boss? I would agree. It would be frustrating, but still expected PvP. If they are trying to get the mob to win? They just stand there occasionally throwing an attack to further weaken you if you start rebounding or another hold if you recover from the mez, not even trying to take you down, just let the mob finish you? That is not PvP. That is intentional griefing. Regardless, this is a tangent to the topic.

I'm going to go ahead and bring it right back though because it's a discussion that was started by you, so I assume it was worth discussing to begin with.

 

Instead of creating what ifs or possibly could haves scenarios, let's just rely on what the Code of Conduct actually says:

Conduct Guidelines

1. Do not abuse or harass others
   1. This includes players, Homecoming staff, and players or staff from other communities
   2. If someone wants you to leave them alone, you must leave them alone
2. Obey the content guidelines (see below) at all times
   1. This includes messages and actions in-game, on the forum and on Discord

 

So as long as the behavior isn't violating the above guidelines, it's not harassment, griefing, or otherwise frowned on behavior. Can we agree on that?

[Rudra]

First, I wasn't the one that brought it up. Slovernia did. Second, that was not a hypothetical situation. It happened to me on multiple occasions on Live. Specifically in Siren's Call. Third, I did ask them to stop, that I was just trying to get a badge I couldn't get elsewhere (alignment system did not exist yet and Blue Ink Men were only available to heroes in Siren's) and speed up the Warrior boss badge. I got laughed at. They were specifically making the mobs win rather than take me down themselves, building up my debt. When I was hosp'ed by them again, I simply left the zone. This is why I avoid PvP zones like the plague unless it looks deserted and I still need the badges in them. So, by the Conduct Guidelines you provided, that would be harrassment/griefing. Are we done with this tangent now?

 

Correction: Darionleonidas brought it up. Slovernia responded. I responded to Slovernia. Apologies to all involved.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Rudra
Edited to add correction.

[Glacier Peak]

14 minutes ago, Rudra said:

First, I wasn't the one that brought it up. Slovernia did. Second, that was not a hypothetical situation. It happened to me on multiple occasions on Live. Specifically in Siren's Call. Third, I did ask them to stop, that I was just trying to get a badge I couldn't get elsewhere (alignment system did not exist yet and Blue Ink Men were only available to heroes in Siren's) and speed up the Warrior boss badge. I got laughed at. They were specifically making the mobs win rather than take me down themselves, building up my debt. When I was hosp'ed by them again, I simply left the zone. This is why I avoid PvP zones like the plague unless it looks deserted and I still need the badges in them. So, by the Conduct Guidelines you provided, that would be harrassment/griefing. Are we done with this tangent now?

 

Correction: Darionleonidas brought it up. Slovernia responded. I responded to Slovernia. Apologies to all involved.

I'm not sure what purpose debating whether you brought up the scenario has in this discussion. I'm responding to your post, not DarionLeonidas or Slovernia. They did not say something to the effect of "this happened to me, I consider it griefing." You did so in your post, so that is why I'm discussing it. 

 

So based on the Code of Conduct, if one person asks another to stop interacting with them in some way, then they must do so. If this does not occur, it is recommended a GM get involved either through a support ticket or ping on the official Discord.

 

And to reiterate, PvPing in a PvP zone is not griefing.

[Rudra]

Your words: "I'm going to go ahead and bring it right back though because it's a discussion that was started by you, so I assume it was worth discussing to begin with."

Griefing was brought up by darionleonidas. I did not say it actually happened to me until after your first response about the Code of Conduct.

 

"And to reiterate, PvPing in a PvP zone is not griefing."

 

So do the Conduct Guidelines apply or not? You say it has to fall into the guidelines you posted, I said it does, and you say it still does not count. So which is it? It cannot both apply and not apply. Either harassment as defined by the Conduct Guidelines is harassment/griefing, regardless of where it happens, or the Conduct Guidelines mean nothing. Which is it?

 

Actually, I didn't say it happened to me until after your second post about the Conduct Guidelines. So you are still saying I started it even though I did not.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Rudra
Edited to add last half of 3rd paragraph and add 4th.... Sorry, I keep editing. I'll stop editing this post.

[Glacier Peak]

I'm not sure how much more clearer I can be. I directly quoted the Code of Conduct so there wasn't any confusion, I reiterated the pop up message that every player receives before entering a PvP zone about the likelihood of being attacked, and I've made a point of highlighting the appropriate course of action if a player feels they are being harrassed.

 

As for the suggestion itself, I think it could have potential if tested, but I'm concerned aren't enough players interested in doing so. That's one of the bigger challenges with testing specific gameplay elements like base building, AE, or PvP in this case. Not enough people to test and break it. 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Glacier Peak
Condition to confusion autocorrect