A couple of suggestions

[Tubalcain]

1: Let's make debuff aoe toggles capable of targeting team mates. So you can use the party Tank as your anchor, for example.

 

2: Hero vs Villain competitive missions. Sort of like task forces but there's opposing hero and villain teams running around trying to perform objectives that conflict with each other. A sort of an indirect pvp. A lot of thought and effort would have to be put into this though so it's not just a question of which team has the most Kins.

Edited Saturday at 11:43 PM by Tubalcain

[keyguardactive]

Competitive missions sound cool on paper, but I think it would be hard to co-ordinate two teams on opposing factions starting at the same time. Plus, there's a known Villain Player Deficit, so it gets even harder that way, too.  

[biostem]

3 hours ago, Tubalcain said:

1: Let's make debuff aoe toggles capable of targeting team mates. So you can use the party Tank as your anchor, for example.

There are powers that can be anchored to a friendly target, such as disruption field;  It's a very deliberate design decision to have limited other such debuffs to enemy-only, and that is, IMO, factored into the values and other such aspects of the powers.  What would you be willing to give up, in exchange for the increased flexibility of being able to place the buffs on your allies, (especially for Ats that have their own pets).

 

3 hours ago, Tubalcain said:

2: Hero vs Villain competitive missions. Sort of like task forces but there's opposing hero and villain teams running around trying to perform objectives that conflict with each other. A sort of an indirect pvp. A lot of thought and effort would have to be put into this though so it's not just a question of which team has the most Kins.

I would very much like to see this form of "indirect PvP", especially since it wouldn't require players focus so specifically on a PvP build, while still fostering competition.

[Techwright]

3 hours ago, keyguardactive said:

Competitive missions sound cool on paper, but I think it would be hard to co-ordinate two teams on opposing factions starting at the same time. Plus, there's a known Villain Player Deficit, so it gets even harder that way, too.  

At least on the surface, this sounds a bit similar to the supergroup vs supergroup base raids from the original game, which, if I recall correctly, got canned because of design problems.  I never actually got into such a conflict, only read about them.  Were that to ever be brought back (yeah, not likely) it need not be hero vs villain group, just two opposing groups.

[Rudra]

4 hours ago, Tubalcain said:

2: Hero vs Villain competitive missions. Sort of like task forces but there's opposing hero and villain teams running around trying to perform objectives that conflict with each other. A sort of an indirect pvp. A lot of thought and effort would have to be put into this though so it's not just a question of which team has the most Kins.

 

50 minutes ago, biostem said:

I would very much like to see this form of "indirect PvP", especially since it wouldn't require players focus so specifically on a PvP build, while still fostering competition.

It exists in Siren's Call. Do missions in Siren's Call and you sway zone control to your side. I'm not saying more is a bad thing, other than I won't be doing it (any PvP) personally so I don't care either way, just that "indirect PvP" via competitive missions already exists in the PvP zones.

 

Edited yesterday at 04:04 AM by Rudra
Edited to add parenthesis to make statement clearer for intent.

[biostem]

12 minutes ago, Rudra said:

It exists in Siren's Call. Do missions in Siren's Call and you sway zone control to your side. I'm not saying more is a bad thing, other than I won't be doing it (any PvP) personally so I don't care either way, just that "indirect PvP" via competitive missions already exists in the PvP zones.

Well, I was more thinking how some PvP puzzle games are handled, where you don't/can't directly attack the opposing player(s).  Instead, your actions may spawn more NPCs or environmental hazards or the like, that the other team has to deal with...

[Rudra]

36 minutes ago, biostem said:

Well, I was more thinking how some PvP puzzle games are handled, where you don't/can't directly attack the opposing player(s).  Instead, your actions may spawn more NPCs or environmental hazards or the like, that the other team has to deal with...

I don't know about that. I don't PvP. However, it seems to me that Siren's Call already meets the request criteria for indirect PvP. Yes, it is done in a PvP zone where the players risk encountering PvP players, but where else would even indirect PvP go in this game? And an opposing team isn't necessary. The missions are all instanced. Very short maps, but there are no enemy players on the maps and it is a PvE environment on those maps so PvE players are just fine running the missions (as long as they can reach them). Villains do missions that give them advantage and heroes do missions that give them advantage. Whichever side did more for their side than the other is the side that has advantage. So if the villains did more, heroes find themselves in a progressively more difficult spot until they run enough missions to take the advantage; and vice versa. So, indirect PvP in the form of competing missions.

[Tubalcain]

6 hours ago, keyguardactive said:

Competitive missions sound cool on paper, but I think it would be hard to co-ordinate two teams on opposing factions starting at the same time. Plus, there's a known Villain Player Deficit, so it gets even harder that way, too.  

Switching sides is so easy now I don't think it's much of a barrier and it may lure more people to the dark side which is always a win. 🤣

 

1 hour ago, biostem said:

Well, I was more thinking how some PvP puzzle games are handled, where you don't/can't directly attack the opposing player(s).  Instead, your actions may spawn more NPCs or environmental hazards or the like, that the other team has to deal with...

Oh that's a great idea. Instead of competing to rush to the end the actions of the other team hinder you. You both get to the end but how easy it is depends on team actions.

 

Let's say it's spread across a series of maps. When one team gets the goal the exit of the current map for the opposing team changes to a tougher route of maps. The can get back to the easier route by beating the other team to this new map's objective.

 

They got to the detonator before you could disarm the bomb. Now you have to go through the sewers which is a longer route. We could have THEIR objective in the longer route be a little easier to do so it's not completely one sided. Even get progressively easier the more times they lose. Then you could have smaller objectives that would further make things more difficult for the other team like inflicting debuffs or releasing enemy spawns. The tougher maps could have more side objectives to inflict hardships on the other team to get an edge. Like how racing games speed up the players in the back so it's not one sided. Which is more fun for everyone involved.

 

You could even have points where their paths can criss cross and you can go at it with each other if they happen to run into each other.

Edited yesterday at 06:02 AM by Tubalcain

[Rudra]

47 minutes ago, Tubalcain said:

Switching sides is so easy now I don't think it's much of a barrier and it may lure more people to the dark side which is always a win. 🤣

 

Oh that's a great idea. Instead of competing to rush to the end the actions of the other team hinder you. You both get to the end but how easy it is depends on team actions.

 

Let's say it's spread across a series of maps. When one team gets the goal the exit of the current map for the opposing team changes to a tougher route of maps. The can get back to the easier route by beating the other team to this new map's objective.

 

They got to the detonator before you could disarm the bomb. Now you have to go through the sewers which is a longer route. We could have THEIR objective in the longer route be a little easier to do so it's not completely one sided. Even get progressively easier the more times they lose. Then you could have smaller objectives that would further make things more difficult for the other team like inflicting debuffs or releasing enemy spawns. The tougher maps could have more side objectives to inflict hardships on the other team to get an edge. Like how racing games speed up the players in the back so it's not one sided. Which is more fun for everyone involved.

 

You could even have points where their paths can criss cross and you can go at it with each other if they happen to run into each other.

You're going to run into coordination problems this way. And even if you manage to get a hero and villain team lined up to run this against each other simultaneously, then you have the added concern of connectivity issues that may only affect players on one side for sharing a region not shared by the other team. Even before you get to the which team can faceroll the missions faster than the other team. So like @keyguardactive said, sounds really nice on paper, but then you face plant into reality. (Okay, so that isn't actually what @keyguardactive said.) So, some things to consider.

 

Edit again: And by connectivity issues, I mean players taking longer than normal to load onto mission maps, giving the other team extra time to accomplish their objectives first.

 

Edited yesterday at 06:39 AM by Rudra
Edited to remove "active" twice for the text editor adding them when I mentioned "@keyguardactive" each time.

[Display Name]

I just read the first couple of posts.  But wouldn't the PVP areas address this request?

[lemming]

11 hours ago, Rudra said:

it seems to me that Siren's Call already meets the request

Pretty sure all the PvP zones have that functionality.  except RV iirc, but they have their own deal with the turret thingies.

[Rudra]

37 minutes ago, lemming said:

Pretty sure all the PvP zones have that functionality.  except RV iirc, but they have their own deal with the turret thingies.

I don't PvP, so thanks for that clarification.