Is it time to address divergent PvP rules/settings?

[macskull]

2 hours ago, Scarlet Shocker said:

Perhaps this is exactly why PVP is only embraced by such a small percentage of the player base. It's not their understanding at fault it's the convoluted roles and rules in PVP itself I'd argue. 

Even when PvP was (almost) mechanically identical to PvE it didn’t have a huge following. People were always doing things like going into PvP with their SO’d flying Archery Blaster and expecting to be competitive, then complaining when they found out the game is very different when there’s someone capable of thinking and breathing fighting against them. The funny thing is it was the complaints from those types of people that got PvP overhauled which really just resulted in driving the existing PvPers away without bringing in new people (who were never going to actually PvP anyways).

 

At the end of the day, this game has never been very difficult which tends to attract a certain type of player, very few of whom are interested in PvP. Hell, go into almost any PvP-related thread outside of the PvP section of the forums and you’ll find people who are outright hostile to even the idea of PvP even though this game’s PvP has always been entirely opt-in.

Edited 9 hours ago by macskull

[Darmian]

Back on retail I got ganked by a few douchebags, sure.  And after a while you knew who they were.  But I also met cool PVPers, one (I wish I could remember their name) spotted that I was just grabbing a nuke and rather than just sniping me and taking the kill went to the bother of telling me I'd lost my Scientist (hadn't noticed it myself, it happens) and guarded me while I went back for her.  They were there for PVP, not ganking.  Respect to that. 

[BZRKR]

Not in my opinion. Maybe put it on the extended task list, but nowhere near the middle, let alone the top of the list.

[El D]

The sheer amount of divergence between PvE and PvP mechanics means they can't ever really be equated again, at least not in any game-wide fashion. Between the alternate functions in IO sets and all the powerset modifications and additions, PvE numbers get way too bonkers to be any fun for PvP and PvP numbers are not nearly super enough for PvE. Depending on the ATs and sets involved, every PvP match with PvE mechanics would either an instant curbstomp or an unending stalemate only broken by select incarnate/temp powers or ridiculous inspiration usage. Conversely, PvP numbers are way too cranked down to be any fun against NPCs (as anyone who has gone into a PvP zone with a PvE build can attest), much less the keyboard snapping frustration of trying iTrials or Hard Mode with PvP mechanics.

 

The idea that 'PvP would be more accepted/utilized if it was just a bit different/broader in scope' is odd to me, especially when considering what PvP already provides. The content in PvP zones is accessible to every player as is, obtainable temp powers are usually buffed to a point of being 'worth the risk' of having to use PvP mechanics/dealing with the potential danger of other players, the badges are plenty easy enough to sweep through (aside from the AVs in Recluse's Victory and even those aren't too bad), and most importantly the primary mechanics and balance of the majority of the game aren't being dictated by an alternate set of rules that are almost entirely less fun for 90% of its content. PvP has worthwhile incentives, allowances for the different mechanics, constraints on how far those different mechanics reach, and is engaged in purely at player discretion. With the consideration that PvP effectively has to be a separate subsystem for the majority of the game to continue functioning the way players expect it to - and for PvP itself to maintain any kind of enjoyable balance - that's really the best arrangement it can have.

 

The only major addition I could see being worthwhile is base raids, but with the level of creative, mind-bending nonsense folks can create with a jailbroken base editor now I doubt even that would work in any reasonable fashion. At least not without some kind of 'this base doesn't meet raid specifications' auto-check system (if something like that is even possible in-engine). The unfortunate reality is that CoX wasn't made with PvP in-mind, both game design-wise and community-wise in the type of player the game attracted, and that's why it exists as it does. That's also why PvP can't really be 'fixed' - at least not mechanically in the ways these discussions hypothesize - without also potentially changing how baseline CoX plays at the same time and possibly alienating more players than any PvP numbers revamp brings to the table.

 

Not to say that interest couldn't be enhanced at all, I just don't think it'll come from mechanics. IMO, the way to improve PvP interest is to lean into community engagement. The most fun I ever had with it were the big Arena contests folks would do back on Live. Last Man Standing, team fights, and just for funsies bouts. Sometimes my supergroups would do sparring matches, either to test out new builds or for roleplay moments. Which character won didn't actually matter - we rolled with whatever the outcome and made it a good training moment or story beat. CoX as a game is built around collaboration and storytelling, which is why the intense 'gank the opposing faction' leaderboards stuff never took off here, but more stuff that aligns with the heart of the community could absolutely work. For fun contests would go over a lot better than any 'cutting edge superbuild player killer' stuff.

[macskull]

1 hour ago, El D said:

The unfortunate reality is that CoX wasn't made with PvP in-mind, both game design-wise and community-wise in the type of player the game attracted

Agreed with the second part, but the first part is simply untrue. You can find gameplay demos from as far back as early alpha builds of the game where the Cryptic employee doing the demo talks about PvP. I'll often hear the follow-up argument that "PvP was added afterwards so the game wasn't built with it in mind" but by that logic the game wasn't built with badges, capes, respecs, the IO system, incarnates, inherent Fitness, additional pool powers, levels 41-50, Kheldians, VEATs, or side-switching in mind either, but those all exist.

 

2 hours ago, El D said:

IMO, the way to improve PvP interest is to lean into community engagement.

Agreed here as well, and there were routinely GM/dev-sponsored PvP events back during the retail days. There were a few early on in HC's run as well but my understanding is the team stopped providing support/sponsorship for them in the way of prizes so the PvP community reps really didn't have any official backing which meant any events relied entirely on player donations.

[aethereal]

I don't know how people would expect PVP with PVE rules on mezzes to be anything approaching like fun.  You're either immune to all mezzes (if you're an armored class or you popped a breakfree) or you get held and killed the end.  That doesn't sound fun!

[macskull]

12 minutes ago, aethereal said:

I don't know how people would expect PVP with PVE rules on mezzes to be anything approaching like fun.  You're either immune to all mezzes (if you're an armored class or you popped a breakfree) or you get held and killed the end.  That doesn't sound fun!

Mez is a binary thing so it's extremely difficult to balance around that. Under the pre-I13 rules Controllers and Dominators were top-tier dueling ATs but under the current rules they're absolutely awful. At least under the old rules inspiration management was its own skill, since you had to both bring the right mix of inspirations and make them last the entire 10 minutes of an arena duel, and if you were dueling against a Controller or Dominator you needed to come out of the gate pretty aggressively to get a kill or two otherwise you'd quickly burn through your breakfrees. These days you just bring 20 greens to most duels.

[Scarlet Shocker]

48 minutes ago, macskull said:

There were a few early on in HC's run as well but my understanding is the team stopped providing support/sponsorship for them in the way of prizes so the PvP community reps really didn't have any official backing which meant any events relied entirely on player donations.

 

That's how the rest of the game runs and it's doing remarkably well for a zombie game. 

 

We are community led, so anything lacking is fundamentally on all of us as a collective. We are our own magic wand. 

[Scarlet Shocker]

4 hours ago, MTeague said:

 

Diablo 2, in Hardcore mode, was Permadeath from the word go. That was just part of the risk of choosing that mode of play, and it was one HECK of an adrenilin rush.  I didn't really object to the permadeath as such.

 

But in Diablo 2, any and all PvP was nonconsensual. Nonconsensual PvP+Permadeath is a recipe for maximum possible grief. Every Diablo 2 player was, on paper, one of the heroes supposed to be fighting evil.  But any player could declare hostility on you, at nearly any time. Even while you were deep in combat and surrounded by other PvE enemies, like Act Bosses. The PvP'ers had to go back to town in order to flag themselves as hostile, but they could still use waypoints to bamph right back next to you, and I'm 90% sure they could use a third players open town portal to get back to the party nearly instantly, too. The culture at the time was generally people joining games with random players, and it was always a "how far do I trust them?". 

 

After finding a small cadre of players I trusted, we agreed to us a particular set of password protected games to block out any players except someone we were personally willing to vouch for.

 

There's a lot in this that I don't understand but sounds awful.