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

[Rudra]

Yep, you quoted it. Funny thing though, I can't seem to find a PvP carve out in the Code of Conduct. So even in a PvP zone, if someone not engaging in PvP activity asks someone else to stop and leave them alone, they have to leave them alone. Or it counts as harassment. With that, I'll get off my soap box.

 

Sorry everyone, for this long tangent.

[Apparition]

17 minutes ago, Rudra said:

Yep, you quoted it. Funny thing though, I can't seem to find a PvP carve out in the Code of Conduct. So even in a PvP zone, if someone not engaging in PvP activity asks someone else to stop and leave them alone, they have to leave them alone. Or it counts as harassment. With that, I'll get off my soap box.

 

Sorry everyone, for this long tangent.

 

 

 

 

Read and learn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once you enter a PvP zone, it is open season on you.  You can request not to be PvPed inside the zone, but no one has to oblige and they would not be in the wrong for PvPing you, since that's the intended use of the zone.

[Rudra]

I sit corrected. Apologies.

 

(Which is why I still avoid PvP zones like plague unless it looks deserted and I need something in it.)

Edited January 28, 2022 by Rudra
Edited to add last line.

[Rudra]

Holy hells, reading that thread hurts....

Thank you, Apparition, for this migraine. 😖

[MHertz]

I don’t PVP, but it seems like the workable solution to base raids and mayhem missions is to make a specific set of pre-made maps with different objective types — castle raid, capture the flag, king of the hill, or whatever. Maps could take the form of city blocks, bases, office buildings, etc.

 

Yes, it would take some time to build such maps, and they wouldn’t be player-built and fully-customized bases. Still, it would solve the pathing problem for pets and create an interesting space where team PVP could happen. Toss those maps into the arena and you’re good to go.

[DarionLeonidas]

On 1/27/2022 at 3:17 PM, Rudra said:

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.)

Okay, but you are focusing on a problem based on the mission as it is.
That will _always_ result in a "no" vote for any new idea.
It would be more productive to think of ways to modify the mission so it can accommodate the suggested PvP modification.

[Glacier Peak]

5 minutes ago, DarionLeonidas said:

Okay, but you are focusing on a problem based on the mission as it is.
That will _always_ result in a "no" vote for any new idea.
It would be more productive to think of ways to modify the mission so it can accommodate the suggested PvP modification.

I'm fairly confident this could be done through the game's code. Would take a good bit of testing to iron out any unintended side effects or bugs that manifest. 

[DarionLeonidas]

On 1/27/2022 at 4:24 PM, Crasical said:

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.

I certainly do agree that balancing would be -- as it always is -- a tricky proposition, at best.
Sometimes, even often, I think it is downright impossible.
The easiest solution, I guess, is just to throw opposing teams in and let them have at each other for the pure fun of it. The mission becomes no more than a standard PvP duel but with the minor wrinkle that there is a bank in there, somewhere, if anybody cares. 
But in all honesty, I have found "balance" to be largely a mirage. Yes, numbers and statistics will tell, but the beauty of CoX is that over the years we have seen team tactics can sometimes offset "perfect builds"; at least, I've seen that, in occasional PvP Zone missions (I like the Warburg missiles).

And frankly, my main interest is finding a way to create "Arch Enemies", and I think offering the option of opposable Safeguard/Mayhem missions might be a good testbed for trying it out.

[DarionLeonidas]

On 1/27/2022 at 4:40 PM, Rudra said:

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.

YES!
And this is probably a LOT easier for the admins, which makes it even better!!!
Best of all, though, this would allow testing the "Arch Enemy" mechanic with a minimum of extra work for the Admins.

Edited January 29, 2022 by DarionLeonidas
Added text

[DarionLeonidas]

On 1/27/2022 at 5:20 PM, 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.

I'd play these missions, balanced or not. 🙂

Edited January 29, 2022 by DarionLeonidas
Fixed typo

[DarionLeonidas]

On 1/27/2022 at 7:30 PM, Solvernia said:

 

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

Sorry, I guess "griefing" has a more negative connotation than I thought.
My mistake.

[DarionLeonidas]

On 1/27/2022 at 7:34 PM, 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 is a pretty dastardly way to conduct oneself in any game.
And by "dastardly", I mean Villainous (which is okay), not Heroic (which is cheesy).
All gaming is roleplaying, and how people behave in a game proves it.  🙂

[DarionLeonidas]

On 1/27/2022 at 9:37 PM, 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.

I think he's correct.
I do accept that a PvP zone is a dangerous place and I will probably be attacked if I go there.
The problem I have with it, is that there is no practical reason for attacking anyone except to be a "spoiler" to get a badge.
That's exactly why I am proposing, and would like to see, the Arch Enemy mechanic implemented in the game.
If attacking another player in a PvP zone actually accomplished anything material in the game, it would be worthwhile. "The Secret World" did this with global buffs for the faction which dominated the PvP sites, whether other players of that faction participated or not.
But somebody bouncing in their Staker to gank someone about to capture a turret for no other reason than to satisfy an urge is, frankly, a little creepy. Whether or not it is a revelation of a person's character is a subject for another debate, but I would not trust such a person.
If one is going to pull wings off flies, one should at least have a crippled pet frog they need to feed. 

[DarionLeonidas]

On 1/27/2022 at 10:26 PM, Glacier Peak said:

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?

I think the second clause of Rule Number 1 in those "Contact Guidelines" proves his point.
"If someone wants you to leave them alone, you must leave them alone"
I have never seen a PvP'er stop attacking a player who asked to be left alone. It always required intervention by other players, and rarely stopped even then.
So what we can agree on is for every player -- PvP'er or not -- "grief" is a term they define for themselves.
But the variation on the old saying holds true: "If you would know a person's character, only observe how they play a game."

[Glacier Peak]

4 minutes ago, DarionLeonidas said:

I think the second clause of Rule Number 1 in those "Contact Guidelines" proves his point.
"If someone wants you to leave them alone, you must leave them alone"
I have never seen a PvP'er stop attacking a player who asked to be left alone. It always required intervention by other players, and rarely stopped even then.
So what we can agree on is for every player -- PvP'er or not -- "grief" is a term they define for themselves.
But the variation on the old saying holds true: "If you would know a person's character, only observe how they play a game."

I can agree with you on everything you've said except that bit about defining griefing. That is where the player's definition is irrelevant - if a player feels as though they are being griefed (for whatever reason, could be unrelated to PvP), they should first ask the player they believe are doing the griefing to cease and desist (politely as possible) and if that does not abate the behavior, the next step would be to request the support of a GM. Once it reaches that GM intervention point, a GM will determine if the behavior reaches that threshold outlined in the Code of Conduct guidelines and what the appropriate steps are moving forward. Otherwise, any player could say anything is griefing and we'd all be locked out of our game accounts 😅

[DarionLeonidas]

So, we have had some interesting tangential discussions, here, and some very productive suggestions.
I wanted to take a minute to thank everyone for reading through my looooong proposal and weighing in with ideas and suggestions, and yes, criticisms.
More than anything, I'd like to see the "Arch Enemy" concept implemented, but right behind it I really would like to see PvP made relevant to game play.

Even though I might never participate in it, I think it should matter, somehow, and that it could result in a lot more interest and variety in the game.
Thanks again, everyone!

[DarionLeonidas]

On 1/28/2022 at 12:13 AM, Apparition said:

 

 

 

 

Read and learn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once you enter a PvP zone, it is open season on you.  You can request not to be PvPed inside the zone, but no one has to oblige and they would not be in the wrong for PvPing you, since that's the intended use of the zone.

I remember "Diablo" did this (I think).
I have to say that if you go into a PvP Zone, you don't get to declare immunity.
I just would like to see the risks made commensurate with the rewards.

[golstat2003]

5 hours ago, DarionLeonidas said:

I'd play these missions, balanced or not. 🙂

 

And if they weren't balanced, I sure as hell would not. And I suspect many others wouldn't. Just saying "throw the players in" would not solve the issue that as soon as players saw the balance issue they would insta stop playing it after trying it once. And then we are back to having pvp that had limited volunteer dev time spent on it that no one plays. . . . like now.

 

My suggestion for balance would be to only allow one of each AT on each team. (Yes I know that leaves some ATs out every time such a mission is queued. That would be part of the strategy of making a balanced team without knowing what the other team is.

Edited January 29, 2022 by golstat2003

[Solvernia]

Players attack other players in PVP zones in order to instigate PVP conflict. Locations in PVP zones where badges and other rewards can be earned are hotspots for this reason, as there will be a greater chance of encountering a player in these areas than elsewhere in the zone. You are being attacked while badge hunting because the enemy player is attempting to provoke you into fighting them. It is easy to assume otherwise, but jumping to conclusions and attributing every PVP attack on you to personal malice or attempts at griefing is unreasonable and unfair.

 

When you enter a PVP zone you are implicitly accepting that you can and will be attacked at any time by anyone for any reason. The specific reason that you are attacked is irrelevant. In order to be fair to all parties involved and minimize toxicitiy and systemic abuse, all PVP must be legitimate in a zone where PVP is enabled. You cannot pick and choose what counts as "valid" PVP or else an unnecessary amount of time would be spent nitpicking and attacking other players over whether or not they are playing according to the rules. As someone who has spent decades playing games that featured heavily policed open PK (such as MUDs like Achaea), I can assure you that establishing complex rules on what is and is not acceptable PVP does not create an environment that is conducive to fun.

If someone is preventing you from obtaining badges in the zone by engaging in PVP with you, then there are many options available to you in order to resolve this. For example, you can kill them until they get bored and leave, call your friends over to kill them until they get bored and leave, or do nothing and wait until they get bored and leave. If you are unable to exercise any of these options then I recommend that you improve your skill at PVP and expand your network of social contacts until you and your friends are capable of fighting off anyone who attacks you in your quest to acquire PVP badges. If you are willing to adjust your mindset on the matter and adopt a playstyle that is more appropriate for a PVP zone, you may find this more fun than getting attacked, killed, and going to complain about it on the forums.

Edited February 5, 2022 by Solvernia

[Rudra]

They can attack you, so they don't need to provoke you to attack them. PvP is still happening. If they are simply keeping you from defending against a mob rather than trying to defeat you, if they are simply trying to get you to lose to a mob, as happened to me over and over and over again by those two players who were ignoring other players in the zone, it is hard to view that as PvP. Like you said though, I finally left the zone, so it was "dealt with".

[DarionLeonidas]

This is turning into a referendum about PvP.
If you don't want to do PvP, don't go into a PvP zone.
If you do, then you do not have a choice as to whether you are attacked or not.
By the same token, my proposal to make Safeguard/Mayhem missions partially PvP was based, very clearly, on players being able to choose to set the mission for PvP; in no way do I advocate forcing PvP on anybody.
My only complaint with PvP is that as it currently exists, it is pointless in game terms. It has no value regarding the overall events in-game.
Hero or Villain, everybody hates Malta. Everybody fights Rikti. Everybody defies Nemesis -- there's even a supergroup called "League Against Nemesis" and anybody can join it.
I would just like to see PvP matter within the context of the game.

[golstat2003]

12 hours ago, DarionLeonidas said:

This is turning into a referendum about PvP.
If you don't want to do PvP, don't go into a PvP zone.
If you do, then you do not have a choice as to whether you are attacked or not.
By the same token, my proposal to make Safeguard/Mayhem missions partially PvP was based, very clearly, on players being able to choose to set the mission for PvP; in no way do I advocate forcing PvP on anybody.
My only complaint with PvP is that as it currently exists, it is pointless in game terms. It has no value regarding the overall events in-game.
Hero or Villain, everybody hates Malta. Everybody fights Rikti. Everybody defies Nemesis -- there's even a supergroup called "League Against Nemesis" and anybody can join it.
I would just like to see PvP matter within the context of the game.

 

As long as it's properly balanced I have no issue. If it's not it's just another piece of pvp content that will go unused and be a waste of dev time.

[DarionLeonidas]

On 1/27/2022 at 5:13 PM, Glacier Peak said:

Man these ideas are sounding really familiar 🤔 

If you proposed these sorts of ideas earlier, I apologize if it seems like I'm plagiarizing them; I'm not, as I think plagiarists should "burn in a very special level of Hell. A level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theatre"*.
We're just two highly intelligent people who had the same brilliant idea... because, when you get right down to it, it's kind of an obvious idea.  😁
Cheers!
*Shepherd Book, "Serenity"