With license to develop, why not try a new brand of PVP that may excite casual gamers?

[Sarn]

So, PVP isn't dead, but it's on life support on most servers as far as participation goes? Why not introduce something along the following to encourage player versus player interaction while limiting griefing opportunities? 

1. Low random chance of being able to play an in-game hero or villain per day: Imagine logging in and being able to play Positron or Ms. Liberty, among others? Villains more your style? You've rolled the very unlikely chance of playing Lord Recluse, the rarest of the rare potentials! Log in at your home base and use a discrete channel to communicate with other such fortunate individuals to form a team or even a league!

 

2. Various mission targets: Destroy some thought to be indestructible facility or object red side or, if a villain, blue side. Such objects could exist in multiple locations, with one or more in each zone. Plan your path of destruction and launch your attack! You can freely attack these objects and debuff them, but you cannot attack other players until they either attack you, a team or league member, or buff or heal the facility or object. If the player that attacks you is on a team or in a league, you can then attack any opposing player in that team or league. Other players will be immune to your attacks. Not all mission targets will be of the same toughness or point value. Some may be immune to damage from a team or may require leagues of certain sizes to effect. 

3. Controlled communication: You can freely converse with players on your own team or league and upon the Superhero or Supervillain channel, but you cannot communicate to other players except through randomly generated statements and emotes. For instance, a randomly generated threat with accompanying emote might be "You will fall like Statesman fell!" or "You will grovel at my feet for mercy!" This will limit the opportunity for verbal abuse and associated griefing. 

 

4. Player response: Players will become aware of your activities once an attack on a facility or object is initiated, if not before by discovery by other players. There would be no limit to how many teams or leagues could be attacking or defending the facility or object. However, once you die in one of these teams or leagues, you cannot be targeted and perhaps would appear green to adversaries, Similarly, you can no longer attack, heal or buff the target. Surviving members of teams or leagues could quit and reform as necessary. 

5. Homefield has advantage: Based upon a concept that there will always be more villains red side (even if they are players responding that usually play blue side) and heroes blue side, eventually, the red or blue side will win via sheer numbers; however, successful raids will be recorded in a "top ten" effectiveness list and will be posted on forums. 

6. Players use their PVE builds: All villains, heroes, and characters will have their inherent weaknesses based upon their power choices/builds. This will encourage good leaders to coordinate attacks based upon weaknesses. 

 

Thoughts? 

[Luminara]

8 minutes ago, Sarn said:

Thoughts? 

 

I think there's a Suggestions & Feedback forum.

[Coyotedancer]

1 hour ago, Sarn said:

Thoughts? 

 

 

Nope.

I still wouldn't PvP in this game. 

 

Sorry, but I suspect you'll get that same answer from a lot of folks here, "dirty casuals" or otherwise. 

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

Moved to Suggestions & Feedback.

 

Also: Hi!

[Rudra]

I've said it before and I will repeat it as often as needed. I do not want any form of PvP in any of the PvE zones. I do not want anything to do with PvP. And the OP means that if anyone on a team even tries to repair/heal a structure in a PvE zone or heals a player that was injured and involved in the PvP event even if the healer was unaware of that circumstance, then everyone on that team is now subject to PvP for at least the next 5 minutes. No.

 

(Edit: If you want to involve more players in PvP? Then give them a reason to want to in the PvP zones.)

Edited January 9 by Rudra

[Saiyajinzoningen]

I'm rarely against anything

but I'm against pvp 

cooperation > competition

every day and twice on sunday

[High_Beam]

What @Rudra said.  Keep all PvP out of the PvE zones and we will be good.  Do whatever you want in those PvP Zones, change them, paint them pink I don't care.  I don't care about PvP and have no dog in the PvP fight.  More power to the PvP people if they can attract people to the PvP zones by whatever stick and carrot means it takes, I wish them nothing but success.  But I will fight any attempt to move it out of those zones or implement any change to the games mechanic that diminishes PvE play in favor or in support of PvP play.

 

[Greycat]

1. Random chance of playing Statesman, etc... why would I want to? I've got a ton of my own characters that I'm actually invested in. This isn't (say) a Marvel game where the draw is specifically "Play as X!" with a ton of characters. Part of the draw of COH is that you're your *own* character - just see how popular the costume creator, even with its limitations, is.

 

Besides, you already *can* for some of the characters, sort of - several have their own "personal story missions." They're scripted, of course, as they're meant to tell a snippet of a story. Didn't get far with them before sunset, though. But it prevents - say - StatesmanPlayer1 from running into StatesmanPlayer2 doing un-Statesman things to STatesmanPlayer3.

 

The rest?

 

Saying this as someone who loved zone PVP back in the day and has enjoyed the little bit I've run into here (mostly because people weren't taking it super seriously,) ... moving it to PVE zones in any form is a *huge* no. YOu can probably tell that just from the responses so far. Doing some of the things mentioned in PVP zones, though - sure. (They've got to be better than the Siren's Call battles, for instance, which are really boring setpieces with the two sides staring at each other for 20 minutes before just rushing in.)

 

As far as controlled communication - one, that's not really been an issue here (and the worst, well, that's what an ignore list is for,) and two, I don't like "catchphrases" for this for the same reason I don't like a lot of the villain morality/alignment missions - they don't reflect what my character would say or do *at all.*

 

"Reported in forum lists" - no thanks.

 

 

[Oubliette_Red]

In addition to what @Greycat said, having use of PvE build in PvP... let me know what you think about that after you get slaughtered when you get perma-held.

 

I don't care for PvP myself, there is no incentive you could add to the game that will get me to PvP. The only reason I even enter the zones is due to the placement of exploration badges. I'm fine with people wanting to PvP, they have several zones and the Arena to do that in. I think any MMO these days needs a PvP component as there is a good amount of gamers that enjoy that aspect of the game.

 

The only thing I could think to add to PvP that PvP'rs (and likely RP'rs) would enjoy would be a revival of base raids. Unfortunately, with the free hand the Devs have provided base builders this would pretty much be a non-starter. Only way I can see getting around base rules for pathing/clipping is for SG's to have the ability to have a 2nd base that is strictly for base raids and would have to follow certain restrictions on pathing/placement/blocking/etc. Sadly, I think the scope of that would be monumental if not improbable.

 

[Ghost]

But..

If PVP isn’t implemented in PVE zones, how will some PVPers get to attack/kill unsuspecting and unprepared players?  
How will they ever feel good about themselves?

 

Think of these PVPers.  Please,

[kelika2]

Because most people still blame pvp for getting regen nerfed

[biostem]

Because of how the game handles powers and they're interaction with other players, I tend to avoid PvP.  What I would like to see would be some sort of "indirect PvP", where my team does mini-missions in the main zone map that sends waves of enemies at the opposing team's base, and they have to defend their base and try to overwhelm my team's via a similar process.  Heck, maybe even allow buffing of the NPCs that are allied with you as well...

[High_Beam]

17 minutes ago, kelika2 said:

Because most people still blame pvp for getting regen nerfed

Among other things weather it is true or not.

[Sarn]

2 hours ago, Ghost said:

But..

If PVP isn’t implemented in PVE zones, how will some PVPers get to attack/kill unsuspecting and unprepared players?  
How will they ever feel good about themselves?

 

Think of these PVPers.  Please,

Realize you are being facetious, but I did say that this would not be possible. 

[Greycat]

3 hours ago, Oubliette_Red said:

In addition to what @Greycat said, having use of PvE build in PvP... let me know what you think about that after you get slaughtered when you get perma-held.

 

... part of the reason we have lists of "Does this in PVP, does that in PVE" for powers. And additional set bonuses on the PVP IOs.

 

We used to *have* just one set of rules and one build, and before we really got crazy with IOs - well, you could basically "balance" by having a team. I've still never done a "PVP build," really - used to not need one, now I'm just not interested. Now, no, I wouldn't really go up against someone with a "PVP build."

 

Kind of sad about that, really. I liked having straight-boring-builds that could pull things off - like my energy/energy brute who just dedicated a slot to stuns in whatever attacks took them. Got cussed out a few times for that (along with "Damn stalker!" ... which usually got a laugh and a "Stalker? Where?" in reply.) Or just the long, neverending fight between my ma/regen stalker and a ma/regen scrapper 'til we just nodded and bowed out. Those were fun...

[Sarn]

Have to say that I am not all that surprised by the responses, especially on the PVP encroachment into PVE angle. I get that, by far, most players are more interested in PVE. I am as well. However, this is a way to make something that is largely static have newness, perhaps changing every day. If people don't wish to participate, they don't have to and they are immune to effects unless they take an action to participate. The only thing it potentially does is, for the time it is enacted, make it harder to find a group if people choose to participate. Otherwise, it runs its course in relatively short order. I seem to recall that occasionally GMs would play characters on live and run events. Can't remember if any GMs actually played adversarial characters, but possibly. They were huge, threating to crash servers. What would be the difference between a player doing this and a GM doing this, if one could minimize/eliminate griefing? It's a way of bringing the core characters "to life" in a sense. 

[SpectrumShot]

What the game needs -- has always needed since the very first day of CoV -- is PvP missions, where a team from each side queues up and enters an instance, just like a normal mission, except the two teams have competing goals. One team want to power up the doomsday device, but the other team wants to destroy it. One team wants to steal the goodies, while the other team wants to protect them until backup arrives. One team wants to break into a facility, while the other team wants to find and arrest the intruders before they can get in.

 

Apart from the PvP framework of the mission itself, all of these objectives are easily doable within the scope of existing mission design. Queueing up could be handled through the LFG interface. I've never understood why this never became a thing -- it just seems like such an obvious setup to me. Yes, it requires a bit of cooperation to get two opposing teams together, but so do raids and TFs and costume contests. I'm sure the players can handle it.

Edited January 10 by SpectrumShot

[Sarn]

5 minutes ago, SpectrumShot said:

What the game needs -- has always needed since the very first day of CoV -- is PvP missions, where a team from each side queues up and enters an instance, just like a normal mission, except the two teams have competing goals. One team want to power up the doomsday device, but the other team wants to destroy it. One team wants to steal the goodies, while the other team wants to protect them until backup arrives. One team wants to break into a facility, while the other team wants to find and arrest the intruders before they can get in.

 

Apart from the PvP framework of the mission itself, all of these objectives are easily doable within the scope of existing mission design. Queueing up could be handled through the LFG interface. I've never understood why this never became a thing -- it just seems like such an obvious setup to me. Yes, it requires a bit of cooperation to get two opposing teams together, but so do raids and TFs and costume contests. I'm sure the players can handle it.

I like that idea! Also a way to freshen things up. 

[Rudra]

1 hour ago, Sarn said:

Have to say that I am not all that surprised by the responses, especially on the PVP encroachment into PVE angle. I get that, by far, most players are more interested in PVE. I am as well. However, this is a way to make something that is largely static have newness, perhaps changing every day. If people don't wish to participate, they don't have to and they are immune to effects unless they take an action to participate. The only thing it potentially does is, for the time it is enacted, make it harder to find a group if people choose to participate. Otherwise, it runs its course in relatively short order. I seem to recall that occasionally GMs would play characters on live and run events. Can't remember if any GMs actually played adversarial characters, but possibly. They were huge, threating to crash servers. What would be the difference between a player doing this and a GM doing this, if one could minimize/eliminate griefing? It's a way of bringing the core characters "to life" in a sense. 

Back on Live, yes, there were devs that would log on and play with us. Usually, they would join someone's team. (It was weird when we had a dev join us and the first words he posted on team chat was "Sorry, I'm not familiar with playing, so please be understanding." He was still LOTS of fun to run around with, and wasn't as rusty as he was worried he was.) I've heard of but never seen devs spawning GMs, or even groups of GMs, but while I've heard the rumor it happened, I've never seen it done in this game. And even then, it was never the dev playing against the players, it was the dev spawning some serious opposition for the players to contend with. (I saw this on Firefall or whatever that game was where your character was every AT, just had to see an NPC to change it. [Edit: I've also seen it done on CO where a dev spawned the super shark I can't remember the name of. The shark wiped us out. All 40 of us at max level and working as a team with absolutely no problems.])

 

My points are:

          Firstly, PvE zones are not set up to handle PvP. For PvP to go active in a PvE zone, the PvP mechanics would be made active in the PvE zone. And whether players are involving themselves in the designated PvE zone PvP or not, every player in zone would be forced to be using PvP versions of their powers. Whereas the mobs would not be. (Just like in PvP zones.)

          Secondly, as presented, it would not matter if a specific player wanted to be involved in the PvP occurring in the PvE zone or not. A lot of healing characters will heal other players they see around in zone when they are hurt. So if a passing player or a player that logged on after the PvP event started saw a wounded PvP player and healed him/her/them/it, now that player as well as everyone else on their team/league would suddenly be PvP even if they had no intention of involving themselves in the PvP. And there would be absolutely no way of knowing if the character they went to heal was injured from nearby mobs or from PvP players they can't immediately notice. So even if a player wanted to avoid the PvP, as long as that player for any reason is not aware that the PvP is going on and the players they move to assist are engaging in PvP, they will find themselves now PvP active.

 

50 minutes ago, SpectrumShot said:

What the game needs -- has always needed since the very first day of CoV -- is PvP missions, where a team from each side queues up and enters an instance, just like a normal mission, except the two teams have competing goals. One team want to power up the doomsday device, but the other team wants to destroy it. One team wants to steal the goodies, while the other team wants to protect them until backup arrives. One team wants to break into a facility, while the other team wants to find and arrest the intruders before they can get in.

As long as said missions were all instances and not in the PvE zone, that would be fine. Just like the arena. As has been said on another thread, it could be the Safeguard and Mayhem missions like others have been asking for. Just not the Safeguard or Mayhem missions. They would have to be dedicated PvP versions so players that want nothing to do with PvP can still do their Safeguard and Mayhem missions.

Edited January 10 by Rudra

[lemming]

6 hours ago, Oubliette_Red said:

The only thing I could think to add to PvP that PvP'rs (and likely RP'rs) would enjoy would be a revival of base raids. Unfortunately, with the free hand the Devs have provided base builders this would pretty much be a non-starter. Only way I can see getting around base rules for pathing/clipping is for SG's to have the ability to have a 2nd base that is strictly for base raids and would have to follow certain restrictions on pathing/placement/blocking/etc. Sadly, I think the scope of that would be monumental if not improbable.

It's not the old style base raid, but there is a version:  (Just scroll down or search for "base raid")

 

[Oubliette_Red]

50 minutes ago, lemming said:

It's not the old style base raid, but there is a version:  (Just scroll down or search for "base raid")

 

 

I keep forgetting about that... 🫤

[UltraAlt]

12 hours ago, Sarn said:

So, PVP isn't dead, but it's on life support on most servers as far as participation goes? Why not introduce something along the following to encourage player versus player interaction while limiting griefing opportunities? 

 

It looks like you took time to think out your suggestion so I can appreciate that, but I just don't support your goal.

 

Honestly, there are probably far more people interested in Base Building than there are in PVP.

 

I don't think the DEVs need to go any more out of their way to encourage PVP.

You can make a Temporal Warrior and have a PVP character at level 50 coming out of the character creator.

If that is enough of an incentive to check out PVP then I don't think it is worth putting any more time into it.

 

You can gain Shivans by doing missions in Bloody Bay. 

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Shivan_Shard

 

You can get nukes from Warbug. 

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Biological_Mutagens 

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Nuclear_Blast 

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Chemical_Burn

 

If players are worried about getting gang jumped in a PVP zone, there is always Arena combat.

People could even /lfg for zone or arena PVP. I guess it might happen somewhere, but I have never seen anyone looking for PVP in-game on Homecoming.

I don't even see any other characters when I bother to go to a PVP zone.

 

[A Cat]

13 hours ago, Sarn said:

6. Players use their PVE builds: All villains, heroes, and characters will have their inherent weaknesses based upon their power choices/builds. This will encourage good leaders to coordinate attacks based upon weaknesses. 

I want this part a lot at least. I'm probably just slow but I don't want to have to learn a whole new system to build my character for pvp, especially given how little of it happens (a real chicken and egg problem to be sure). Back when I played live, there was no second set of rules for pvp, and I think it was still fun. But that's just my opinion I guess. 

[Snowbunny]

I would do PvP if it was in their own area separate from the PvE stuff. The other poster recommended doing it through the LFG interface which doesn't sound like a bad idea. However I also kind of like the idea of PvP in PvE zones and maybe only have level 50's targetable who are flagged but I doubt people will like that so..

[Black Zot]

19 hours ago, Sarn said:

6. Players use their PVE builds: All villains, heroes, and characters will have their inherent weaknesses based upon their power choices/builds. This will encourage good leaders to coordinate attacks based upon weaknesses. 

 

 

This right here?  This is how PVE powers get ruined for the sake of doomed attempts at PVP "balance".  No, no, and no again.  Get your ganking fetish out of my gaming.