New, indirect PvP modes if possible?

[Galaxy Brain]

Many people find PvP to be a blast! However, strict "fight another player head on" may not be everyone's cup of tea.

 

Having special PvP missions that are more like Team vs Team objectives could be just as fun! This could be as simple as a leaderboard for who cleared a TF the fastest with X parameters,  to something as complex as a Hero vs Villain mission where the actions of each team can effect the others (get to a glowie and spawn an ambush for the other side, etc), and the first to finish X objectives wins.

 

Would people be interested in this?

 

 

[PaxArcana]

Many people find PvP to be a blast!

A very small minority fraction of the playerbase enjoys PvP.  The majority either doesn't care, or actively loathes it.

[Sniktch]

 

Would people be interested in this?

 

For myself, not at all, in the slightest, ever.

[Galaxy Brain]

Many people find PvP to be a blast!

A very small minority fraction of the playerbase enjoys PvP.  The majority either doesn't care, or actively loathes it.

 

A small portion is still a decent chunk of people, and that is only for current *direct* pvp. A new mode could have different audiences where you can use PvE strategies and stats.

[PaxArcana]

I'm not suggesting otherwise.

 

But I saw the unqualified "many people", and it looked like an inflation of the actual, one-in-a-thousand-at-best, number of people who enjoy PvP, and wanted to counter it.  :)

[retiarius]

If it were possible to opt-in / opt-out at the click of a button, it might be interesting.  There'd have to be a lot more fleshing out of the mechanics and detail to make sure the match-up was at least somewhat balanced, or it would quickly be dismissed and forgotten.

 

[Galaxy Brain]

If it were possible to opt-in / opt-out at the click of a button, it might be interesting.  There'd have to be a lot more fleshing out of the mechanics and detail to make sure the match-up was at least somewhat balanced, or it would quickly be dismissed and forgotten.

 

Yeah, the idea would be an opt in much like how you choose to play "ranked" in most online games. Or special missions that are set up from a special contact that would essentially require people to know what they're in for.

 

 

Side note, I wonder if PvP zones could.be instanced in a way that you can choose PvP or PvE on entry and then the two sides would not interact?

[Redlynne]

What you're really asking for is PvEvP ... where instead of Players attacking each other DIRECTLY, they are instead competing against each other through the use of a medium in the environment.

 

Tug-of-war is an example of this, where the two teams are competing against each other, but doing so through the medium of a rope, rather than directly attacking each other.

 

The old suggestion of making a Big Red Ball™ which could then be used for soccer styled gameplay involving "goals" on either end of a playing field is another example of this.  Rather than launching your attacks against other Players, you're instead "attacking" an environmental object (the aforementioned Big Red Ball™) to influence its movement and trajectory in order to score points in the game.

 

Both of these scenarios are examples of Indirect PvP in which Players "compete" against each other without directly attacking one another.

 

 

 

Personally speaking, I've always thought that the best option for this sort of thing would be a Capture The Flag/Storming The Castle type of scenario in which the objective is for the PC to support the NPCs the PC is aligned with in achieving their objective(s).  So rather than attacking other PCs directly, you attack the "pawn" NPCs of the opposing faction(s) in order to help "your faction" of NPCs win the capture.  And that would be a PvEvP scenario, since different PCs could align themselves with different NPC factions for the event.

[Galaxy Brain]

What you're really asking for is PvEvP ... where instead of Players attacking each other DIRECTLY, they are instead competing against each other through the use of a medium in the environment.

 

Tug-of-war is an example of this, where the two teams are competing against each other, but doing so through the medium of a rope, rather than directly attacking each other.

 

The old suggestion of making a Big Red Ball™ which could then be used for soccer styled gameplay involving "goals" on either end of a playing field is another example of this.  Rather than launching your attacks against other Players, you're instead "attacking" an environmental object (the aforementioned Big Red Ball™) to influence its movement and trajectory in order to score points in the game.

 

Both of these scenarios are examples of Indirect PvP in which Players "compete" against each other without directly attacking one another.

 

 

 

Personally speaking, I've always thought that the best option for this sort of thing would be a Capture The Flag/Storming The Castle type of scenario in which the objective is for the PC to support the NPCs the PC is aligned with in achieving their objective(s).  So rather than attacking other PCs directly, you attack the "pawn" NPCs of the opposing faction(s) in order to help "your faction" of NPCs win the capture.  And that would be a PvEvP scenario, since different PCs could align themselves with different NPC factions for the event.

 

Hey, that could even make gladiators relevent!

[drboston]

PvEvP, where players assist a side but can't directly attack each other would be neat. Head-to-head missions, too.