PvP Balance, Vets vs Noobs
|
*Bastille* Posted Dec 19, 2009, 9:02 am |
In the situation where a new or smaller player is hounded by pvp attacks from larger or more experienced players, maybe leaving them in a situation where they need to sell some of their good equipment just to get by (or basically stopping ppl from wanting to play from not wanting to constantly compete with other players), could there be a limit to the amount of pvp attacks that can be made or can be received? You can make so many attacks per week.. or so many attacks against a certain type of opponent.
Should players be allowed to get away with no pvp? Should players be allowed to target lesser opponents for the very good chance of good loot (better than most pirates). Its probably a realistic post apocalyptic situation to dominate all opposition and great for the real competitive players. Its meant to be all about survival, but if players just died out there is a bit of a problem. Some players may get quite emotional about pvp. Players do put a lot of time into their gang, and different people want to play in different ways. How do you want to play and is there some way we can find a resolution to the discussion that has been filling the lobby all day? |
||||
|
*Burden* Posted Dec 19, 2009, 9:18 am |
How would a system work where, you cant PvP people with gangers more than 10-20 skill higher than the opposing squad's highest ganger? And if your gangers are too high skilled, the PvP "fails to intercept the squad"? | ||||
|
simonmaxhill Posted Dec 19, 2009, 9:25 am |
We could, for purposes of road PvP, implement something that included crew skill in the CR of the squads.
I'd honestly be much happier with a solution that involved just getting some of the vets that aren't PvPing involved in maybe a little bit of running intercepts against the veteran PvPers (I doubt the dudes running the PvP are against this idea, either.) I do think, however, that the player skill is going to be a much bigger factor in winning or losing PvP than ganger skill - except on a completely open plain, of course. |
||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 19, 2009, 9:26 am |
I have to say, the idea of PvP being given automatic 500-skill Mechanic work makes it extremely lucrative for "bullies" to prey on lower-skilled gangers, since they'll get back nearly anything they kill, and in good shape, too. This seems like an extremely unbalancing point. Likewise for the 500 Medic, since the "bullies" can go out of their way to overkill their targets until they kill the crew - a 500 Medic can't do jack about that, and any minor injuries they take in the process will pretty much be healed.
Edit to make my thoughts on the matter a little clearer: Serious PvP players, and especially aggressive PvP players, have a significant advantage in the system over non-PvP players. They can essentially set the stage for when they want to try to ambush people, can watch chat for public discussions about where Scouts are going to go, spy on the people they plan to be ambushing, and will generally have superior crew and equipment to do it with. They can look up the names of Scout crews that are in the planning stages, find out who's in the Scout, investigate what kind of crew and vehicles they have and are likely to field, and generally have a total informational advantage. The victims, on the other hand, will have no knowledge of their attackers until the battle starts. Furthermore, with the current system, they can completely skip out on two otherwise-essential skills - with the "free" super-mechanic and super-medic, they can focus totally on combat skills, while a smart PvE Scout crew will have a decent Mechanic and decent Medic brought along, which are likely to be somewhat lacking in combat skills. I don't know how Scouting affects PvP combat, but if it's anything like PvE, then a high scout would be giving multiple benefits to the attackers, too - much greater likelihood of encountering the Scout Crew they're trying to ambush, much better chance of setting up in favorable positioning... Honestly, an attacking Crew has all of the advantages in PvP. A defending Crew has little chance of ever overcoming an intelligent attacker, and the attacker is rewarded up one side and down the other for doing so. I'm not trying to say that PvP is evil, or needs to be removed. Darkwind is essentially and inherently a PvP game. But some things definitely need to be changed if you want more people to engage in open-world PvP. As it stands right now, the PvP aspect benefits only a very few individuals, and serves to drive other players away from the game entirely. |
||||
|
simonmaxhill Posted Dec 19, 2009, 9:36 am |
Neko, the majority of PvP events I've seen haven't resulted in a fight to the death.
Usually one side either surrenders entirely or works out a deal to surrender one car as a bounty. But you're right that it gives incentive to murder a rare car thoroughly because you know you're going to be able to drive it home... which negates the whole 100% medic, since they dudes inside will have no head. That said, I was never in favor of the 100% jury rig and the super first aid in the first place. |
||||
|
Bytten Posted Dec 19, 2009, 9:46 am |
Grograt has recently led me to a game via Facebook called Starfleet Commander, which is (once you're established, which I'm still some way from at the moment) heavily about PvP.
It has a feature called "diplomacy mode". You can set this on or off, with a 24-hour changeover period, and when switched on you cannot be attacked - or attack anyone else. Those with no PvP interest can thus skip it. There is a cost to this, however, which I think is about 40% of your resource generation. Would a similar "tax" in DW work? It would essentially be protection money. It wouldn't stop your regular AI attacks, but would mean you weren't available for PvP and wouldn't be able to initiate it either. |
||||
|
simonmaxhill Posted Dec 19, 2009, 9:51 am |
We pretty much already have that with the bounty system, tho, don't we? | ||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Dec 19, 2009, 9:58 am |
I think it does seem a bit one sided at the moment. The vets have everything on their side. Experience in game play, skill in gangers, which I would argue is greatly effected by gameplay experience, so double bonus, equipment which makes it easier again and then the fact they are making the ambush. Then with all the extra repair bonus... yeh I agree with Nekojin. Are Spanky and Simmon using their Psionic powers of persuasion on the RC, 
Fight to the death or not, chances are its a fight to a loss for newer players. You boys like picking on the poor that much huh 
Go pick on Latte or guys with mega bucks, and don't pick on me lol I will always be a noob. ...and a winging little bi!@# |
||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 19, 2009, 10:24 am |
Have i missed something in my brief away period, has there been an increase in PVP and are new members being targeted and how if in SS ? | ||||
|
simonmaxhill Posted Dec 19, 2009, 10:38 am |
I am definitely a huge proponent of PvP and would rather see if nerfed than eliminated.
I've done about six PvP events (that weren't bountied out of) and they've all been pretty interesting because I had no damn clue what the other player was going to do. Some people bolt and try to outrun me (with some success) and some people grab some cover and start shooting the crap out of me (with some success). But in either case, I am thinking about every single turn, worrying a few turns ahead, wondering what risks I'll be able to make and what I won't. It's seriously fun and so far I haven't lost anything but money and cars (and pride...lots of pride.) But if there's a consensus (and I'd like it to be based on at least three actual event IDs) that ubergunnery vets are victimizing the newbish playerbase, then maybe some tweaks oughta be made. Hell - I'll benefit from them. My gunners are for crap. |
||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 19, 2009, 10:46 am |
Hee hee |
||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Dec 19, 2009, 11:43 am |
Could the tax % be scaled for newer members, or maybe on your aggression to others or income for those that don't play much. I haven't tried much PvP I must say, and definitely don't want to discourage PvP. In fact just the opposite.  This form (or similar) of encouragement for pvp might be good.
|
||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Dec 19, 2009, 12:30 pm |
It would be great if we had a clue about the target's experience Some kind of information available at a glance in the lobby about players, we have something like that in the forum allready, racers, gurus etc, 2. PvP is a pain to set up and slows down the whole departure/arrival phase, It just dawned on me that maybe we could get it done much faster, here's how You have a squad with a mixture of cars in, You launch it for PvP, it they stays launched untill you recall them (which will play out like a regular scout, so you need medics mechanics, scouts etc). If anyone leaves or arrives at the gates you get a popup like the way it is now, and get to choose which cars you will commit manually to match their CR. Your cars that were not committed stay on patrol until the cars come back together again, and ready for a possible return, or stay on standby again until recalled, but can only intercept another squad to keep things fair. This would make PvP much much faster, and help out the defending squad a little more. edit: to elaborate the last point, maybe if the PvPer squad fails to get their target (scout roll?), then they fight pirates (with the remainder of the cars, if any that were left out) |
||||
|
*Ninesticks* Posted Dec 19, 2009, 1:25 pm |
This about sums it up. As an example having had a look at the one that caused a certain amount of unhappiness earlier today it struck me and the other spectator that the result could/would have been different if one side's tactics had been more appropriate to their situation. I am not sure how you could go about tracking a player's skill with any level of accuracy or usefulness. In a similar vein I am not sure how well you can balance up how useful a ganger's skills are (as they are so interdependent). So unless there is a really bright idea about it I remain unconvinced that this is a viable solution. PvP off button? I really don't think this is a solution either - unless you are prevented from interacting with the other players in a competitive manner across the board where you can cause them harm (so include all the races, combats, deathraces, FPKKK etc). Given that the super medic/mechanic is there to encourage PvP the arguments against it actually show that it works. Does the attacker have too many advantages? Probably yes, though that could be addressed I am sure to increase the risk - purely off the top of my head - perhaps for a failed scout roll for example you would get ambushed by NPCs or the other squad gets a chance to be able to ambush you etc. |
||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 19, 2009, 2:15 pm |
There hasnt been any "Vet" players or anyone for that matter that has destroyed someones gang that I am aware of... why worry about something that hasnt happened and change the game based upon "what ifs"?
As for balancing CR with the skill of gangers? Cmon! All of my gangers are skilled...why would I even PVP at all? Id have noobs attacking me constantly...and then me...a 2 year player would quit the game instead of the noob, who may quit after a month. I just dont see new players getting abused by Vets at the moment... Zoltan and Simon have been the only ones out there Pvping of late.. and its been done all down South and they have been very gentlemenary about it...is that a word? SO quit whinning, if you dont want Pvp, stay in SS , or if your down South, pay the bounty and you dont have to Pvp. 
|
||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Dec 19, 2009, 2:23 pm |
Could there be an aggression level? If there would be a scout modifier for pvp based on a percentage chance; Have a low percentage chance to start with, and the more events a PC competes in with 1 or more other PCs, the chance goes up. Calculated weekly to cover how much people play. 40/60 maybe to start with and 5 points for each event. Winning an event +5; killing players +100; fastest lap +5; in events with other players gives extra bonus points, and any chance greater than 100/100 - 101 and up, means that you play enough that you know what you are doing and can handle a slight CR off-set in favour of the attacker. - If you don't play in any events with other people at all over the week, the chance goes down as a base for that player, maybe only 1 point per week. - If a player is always exceeding the 100/100 mark weekly (or whatever the magic number may be, maybe higher or lower depending on how this would work, and could be an adjusting point for the mechanism), the chance can go up as a base, but faster than not participating say +5 or +10. The base can go higher than 100/100 and if so covers the most experienced and active players. - Holidays not included? Stop people loading up killing players and running away to come back a week later to avoid high pvp %. At the end of the week you get a rise in pvp activity due to the increased chance. Covers experience difference and CR balance, which is directly influenced by the aggression level. Most aggressive gets mention in the gazette for free. Bloodiest, Most feared Road Gang
Seems simple enough, covers activity level, experience, and CR
Actually that seems a lot easier |
||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 19, 2009, 2:33 pm |
Bast - Mind you I am in no way trying to beat ya up in the forums....I just think that alot of people are worrying too much... in 2 years I can say my pvp battles numbers are under 10...and for a while it appeared everyone wanted to attack me for whatever reason... Id say the average Dood , unless looking for them, may get 1 or 2 a year? |
||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 19, 2009, 2:42 pm |
1 more thing to add....
The griefers in the past have been few and far between...most people playing DW are 30s something doods.... and the Vets have always stepped up and taken them out....I hunted and engaged Shark numerous times.... he just ran away... when FF was newer he angered some people....and he learned his lessen and turned into a pretty decent guy.... your not gonan be left hung out to dry if someone tries grieving you in Pvp
|
||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Dec 19, 2009, 3:53 pm |
Your cool longo, not at all! And no disrespect to any others in here, Simon and darth about my RC call, the psoinics call was maybe just a point about balance of CR I guess and was all meant in fun Realy Ihave no experience with pvp... 
Really I have never encountered any griefers or been a target of pvp bullies, I only started the post really from tales I had read about scout girls beating people up in the old pvp days, and recent things I had read in the lobby. So I just wanted to bring them up thinking although everything seems to work, could this be a problem for some people? And maybe the point I don't lose well so, I tend to winge and cry about my dudes or cars. Getting over that more, the more I get, doesn't feel quite so bad now. Although when I lose my fav dudes, i do cry a little, take time to pour some petrol on the corpse, light them on fire and throw on a machine gun mag so he goes out in some spectacular last blaze of glory. Then I take a picture of there character sheet, wishing i''d done it to him before he died, and place it in a folder for good memories... remember the time he drove head on into a scorpion at 70mph to save a mortar, rammed two more pirates that day too and saved the mortar aww 
|
||||
|
Big Daddy Posted Dec 19, 2009, 5:34 pm |
Could you elaborate on those alternatives? Partly because I'm skeptical, but I also know there are many here who are better at combat tactics than I am so I can probably learn something. Maybe heading into the canyon at the start instead of taking the bridge? I heard some suggestions about paying the bounty or a few ways of fleeing, but nothing that even suggested winning was a possibility. I suggested it previously to absolutely no fanfare (http://www.dark-wind.com/forums2/index.php?a=topic&t=9608) but this is an encounter I'd love to be able to practice playing both sides. The game sure looks different for gunners who always hit with a CC at over 100m, but I've never actually tried it. Until then, again, I'm very skeptical that having a fistful more weapon specs than your opponent isn't a huge advantage. |
||||
|
simonmaxhill Posted Dec 19, 2009, 5:34 pm |
One refrain that has been said a handful of times is that veteran "bullies" have nothing to lose and everything to gain in PvP because they have vastly superior gang member skill and the advantage of enough resources to easily replace anything short of a Fire Truck, Ambulance, etc.
That vastly superior gang member skill is what they have to lose and their biggest disadvantage. A squad of newb characters can fight with all cars until all cars are demo'd and not suffer much more than a week or two setback to their gang. The veteran squad running gang members that took literally hundreds of hours to train up (project demon notwithstanding) can't afford to suffer a single breach. So if you can get into a position where you are firing on them and both sides concentrate fire, maybe you'll lose two of three of your cars, but if you get some HMG fire into their gunners face and blow his head off, you'll have done and incredible amount of damage to the other player. If you're in a position to continue pouring fire into that open breach, I'd venture to guess that even if you had 80% of your cars destroyed and they would eventually overwhelm you, the veteran player is going to surrender all his cars immediately. Why? Because, as pointed out earlier, he can get new cars easily. But the characters take a long, long time to train up. re: PvP spawns - they're very varied. sometimes aggressor is in front, sometimes behind, sometimes there's a huge distance. I don't know the mechanics. (maybe this should be a separate thread?) re: the free mech/first aid roll. I think this was implemented in order to encourage more PvP via camp war. The current spate of PvPing is the result of PvP being re-opened all over the continent, as opposed to any other minor encouragements. I think there's arguments pro and con it, but in my opinion at the very least the "auto-salvage" feature ought to be removed (maybe this should be a new thread?) |
||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Dec 19, 2009, 7:53 pm |
There was a truly epic PvP last night between big time vets darth/Zoltan and relatively new tripleS/zombpir8ninjas/somethingelse.
A great "chase" then fight when they were cornered. Vets won, but they got beatup too and got a couple scares. I think this combat points out a few flaws with PvP, none of them have to do with ganger skill in my opinion. If they newbies had fought closer to the start of the bridge it probably would have ended in a draw, with them driving away. Awesome Ped action by them too - shows what happens if you don't mind risking some small skill characters.! S163501 |
||||
|
simonmaxhill Posted Dec 19, 2009, 8:13 pm |
I was definitely impressed by the effects of mass paint rifle fire. If parapsycho were around, I think he'd be about to take over the whole PvP world! | ||||
|
darthspanky Posted Dec 19, 2009, 9:40 pm |
next time ill use a rgm and mortars hehe bye bye peds muhahaha | ||||
|
Whiskey Posted Dec 19, 2009, 9:44 pm |
I love Darkwind. Most enjoyable game I have ever played in my 53 years. After being a citizen of Evan for some 15 months, I am still exploring and learning the maps and terrain, looking for the unexpected viewpoint, etc.
I enjoy playing on a very casual basis. I like taking my time, exploring. The NPC gangs give me all the challenge I want or need. I average about $50k per week of profit (non-PvP.) My recent PvP experience, I had one encounter where I ran away. Lucky starting position and I had faster cars. Zoltan still managed to land a few shots before I escaped. He was hitting me at a range where my lower skilled gangers wouldn't even come close to landing a shot. In a straight on competition, he would have killed me easily. Sure, I could cat-and-mouse through the terrain, pecking away at him. Maybe I would win, maybe not. But it would take hundreds of turns of focused effort. And for what? I maybe get to salvage his shot up cars? No thanks. Not interested. Next encounter, I decided to bounty out. $41k. On an average week, that would leave me a whole $9000 profit. And if I bounty out of two encounters in a week? Three? Pretty soon, I am spending hours scouting out of SS to earn enough to pay my bounties and not lose money. No thanks. Not interested. There is no need for any special "tax" etc. Bounties already impose a too stiff a tax for those of us who don't want to PvP. I willingly give up any training bonus that PvP might grant. I hate PvP. If I am forced into doing PvP on a regular basis, I would most likely leave Darkwind despite it being the ONLY game I play these days. I can't believe that I am a totally unique player. There must be others with similar feelings about PvP. Put in a non-PvP option. Make it tough to change. Like maybe only once per month are you allowed to change your PvP status. That should inhibit exploits. Hells Belles. I hate PvP so much that Sam could put in a special membership rate and I would pay extra (real money not Evan dollars) to be non-PvP. |
||||
|
darthspanky Posted Dec 19, 2009, 10:05 pm |
if yer in a squad i hit let me know im not about ruining yer gameplay ill truce ya
longo said There hasnt been any "Vet" players or anyone for that matter that has destroyed someones gang that I am aware of... why worry about something that hasnt happened and change the game based upon "what ifs"? longo yer forgetting about the time sd rollers inihalated cids whole gang
|
||||
|
*Ninesticks* Posted Dec 19, 2009, 10:14 pm |
Sure, first off is the difference in the chassis. BPUs are great at handling terrain and in particular tough climbs whereas the buzzer is not going to excel at it (even with RB ). Add to that the lack of rear weapon slots on a BPU running in what was essentially a straight line with no dead ground to use as cover is less than ideal. BPUs are also great at close in fighting, their agilty is remarkable - something none of the opposition could hope to match. So the BPU team has the advantage in mobility. Also worth noting that the BPU team would have probably had more bulk in weaponry than the opposition. From the that you get two reasonable alternatives, best choice (imo) would have been to head left to get some terrain cover to use. Probably would have not been enough time for them to get any real hill climbing in but they would have had time to turn, bring weapons to bear and use the cover to close the range to reduce the skill difference in gunnery (below a certain point they will be gaining in accuracy where the buzzer will have maxed out). Second option would have been down into the chasm and try to escape by distance, but given the chance of an unlucky collision with the ground and presenting your top armour if the others get in to position quickly is less than ideal. As already mentioned in other posts target selection would have been important, it would have been fairly easy to take the pho out of the fight quite quickly (and thus threaten the crew) and a good broadside on an apache will roll it (where getting close in would really help). Presuming that all three BPUs were carrying two fwd bulk 40 direct fire weapons they could have knocked the buzzer around too with a concerted effort. None of this would have meant they would have got away loss free, and much would have depended on how Darth and Zoltan would have reacted to these tactics, but I reckon there would have been far more concern on the DZ team. Trouble is most, if not all, players (myself included) get so used to fighting the AI in a rather set manner that when we are faced with human opponents we tend to fall back on the wrong set of instincts. The tactics we use against the AI are because they have a signifcant CR and numberical advantage and dogfighting them in those situations can be foolhardy. Even dogfighting in SS with the AI can be foolhardy if you are not real careful. With a matched CR you can dogfight. |
||||
|
*Longo* Posted Dec 19, 2009, 10:43 pm |
OOPS.
Well there are exceptions to everything |
||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 19, 2009, 11:44 pm |
Seriously, though, the issue isn't someone "destroying" another gang, although I'm sure it can be done fairly easily with two stubborn players. The problem is victimization, or even just the PERCEPTION of victimization. Several of the players from last night (including one or two who weren't involved) are now convinced that they can't play ANYWHERE except Somerset because they'll get jumped by Veteran players. If they feel strongly enough about their game enjoyment being "ruined" by veteran players, they may just simply quit. And that, in the long run, is harmful to the game. Bytten suggested, "Diplomacy Mode," where people can toggle PvP on or off. This could be one possible solution, but it's quite unrealistic. However, it may come to that. But Ninesticks suggested that if someone toggled PvP off, they should be barred from all competitive multiplayer elements of the game. THAT is unrealistic, itself. The Track/Arena events are essential to many people, even those who do a great deal of Scouting. Alocalypse used to go out of his way to try to top the leader board in League events. In Deathraces, Races, Combats, etc. it's a given that all participants are aware of the risks involved. I've seen veteran players refuse to play Deathraces because they didn't have any gangers that they viewed as potentially expendable. Opting to play in one of those events is an explicit acknowledgement of the risks. The people who are going out scouting feel that they're being victimized, because they have no control over the event or the consequences. Once the PvP event starts, they're in a lose-state scenario (or so they believe), where the BEST case is that they manage to escape with some damage. The other alternatives are that they pay a bounty (huge financial loss), they Surrender (significant financial loss, in the form of their vehicles), they outright lose (taking huge losses in both vehicles and potentially manpower). And the worst part of it is that even if they pay the Bounty and get away, they can't go right back out Scouting again, because they have a much higher chance of getting jumped again by the same people. But you're right in one way - if a "PVP toggle" were implemented, there should be some drawback to it. Significant reductions in gang Fame, Reputation, and Morale gains are a start, but that's not enough. There would have to be some sort of timer on how frequently someone could toggle their PvP state - someone shouldn't be allowed to exploit the system by toggling PvP on, jumping someone else, and then toggling it off once the fight is done. Perhaps a 3-day or 7-day "lockout" between switching states. I don't have a perfect solution. I don't think there IS one. But the situation as it is now greatly benefits the aggressors, especially if the aggressors are highly-skilled. And I don't think that it's healthy for the game for things to stay the way they are now. One more thought - perhaps Elmsfield could be included in the PvP protections that Somerset enjoys? There are more towns (Sarsfield, Texan, Shantyville) where PvP can occur now, so allowing the other "newbie" town protection so that newer players can experience and learn about the hazards of travels without the added complication of PvP might be a net gain for the game. Edit: Another thought for PvP - perhaps some limit on how often a player can initiate PvP combat on another player? Say, if Joe and Bob jump and beat up Tim, Fred, and Tony, then any squad that has Joe or Bob in it cannot attack any Squad that Tim, Fred, or Tony are part of for 3 days. That would prevent repeat-griefing. |
||||
|
Big Daddy Posted Dec 20, 2009, 12:01 am |
Thanks for that writeup, Ninesticks, the insights are educational for a "longtime noob" like me. I don't know about the ZPN squad players, but I have zero experience commanding a BPU and just barely above zero in facing a buzzer enemy. That sort of advantage will always favor vets, and I think rightly so.
For something like a "diplomacy" mode, I wouldn't throttle switching that on and off, but Nekojin's things like big reward limits when on and bonuses when off could make it work. So even if you just fight an NPC gang, their loot and your skill gains won't be nearly as good as if you had enabled PVP and encountered the same NPC gang. Since there's no pvp, SS would remain unchanged and for other towns the safety should be "on" for a squad, like the current "autotruce" option. A good goal would be that NPC-only scouting would be just barely sustainable (or maybe not quite) on average, in terms of paying for repairs and ammo with loot. You'd almost never encounter an enemy with rare stuff, but could get experience on the maps and find chassis & configs you like for them while getting some skill gain for your crew in the town. |
||||
|
simonmaxhill Posted Dec 20, 2009, 1:58 am |
One solution: I think it'd also be good to allow players to pay a bounty after they see the spawn setup. This would allow cargo runners to make an educated guess about whether they could run, and therefore reduce their bounty-related costs. I also like the notion of Elms and even possibly GW as PvP safe zones. That would give players that abhor PvP a playground to make their money and have adventures until they get bored enough with PvE to risk the southern adventure. That way newer players like TKWPrime can make a profit, see varied terrain and not have to endure any "cat and mouse" (which sounds super fun to me, but obviously not to him.) As a veteran player I'll admit to being pretty out of touch with the weekly operations of newer players. My memory of "way back when" was that I'd make 10-20k per scout. Nowadays I don't really scout except in FL and I make in the 20-40k range per scout, and then I make big big money running a pair of lorries all over the place. Here's a few key points from a veteran (and pro PvP) perspective: 1. PvP is difficult to initiate, and figuring out how to configure your chassis so as to not get ditched or beaten up is not a particularly easy task 2. I'm not particularly interested in the bounty money, your gear, or killing your characters. Camp fame interests me and more importantly, a new game challenge interests me. 3. you are not nearly at the disadvantage you think you are, except in terms of player-experience. I keep seeing newer players get overwhelmed by despair when they get PvP'd - even in situation where they start out holding the advantage. 4. I'm not doing PvP to piss you off, ruin your day, ruin your game experience or whatnot. 5. At a certain level in DW, PvE becomes very predictable and somewhat repetitious - PvP is honestly as exciting or more exciting to me than my first wilderness scouts in a rental Antagonist (even the "cat and mouse" stuff). Goddamn I wrote another rambling essay. |
||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Dec 20, 2009, 3:27 am |
Still think the aggression thing makes most sense if there should be a change (maybe something like this is already in effect). It covers dificulty in initiating PvP too because it is standard and across all players, no exclusions no safe buttons.
After reading other points of view, im not sure there should be a change. We don't want too much control over the risks we take, or they are not really risks. Speaking of RISK, how many time have you defended with 2 dudes, and ya mate has sets of III and Vs and OMFG is that some Xs he has in that pile, and he hasn't even traded in his cards yet, oh man! For some reason the other guy just rolls 1s 2s and 3s for like 15 mins and you split your sides laughing when your two dudes sends his packing. Not sure if you should be able to shield an individual squad, although having Elms PvP free to give a transport opportunity without risk of PvP does sound like a safe option for newer players, but leave GW, so there is somewhere pretty close to SS where you could get caught out. Players that like hunting in Elms could be a little upset though, Some good maps up there and I like scouting the joint so I can't say other s can't play how they want. I think some of the problem might come from being in a happy zone. You get used to being safe and running safe and all of a sudden snap, something unexpected. Open PvP had stopped by the time I started playing, and only reintroduced in the last few months through town and camp pvp. Nine mentioned other events where death is always a risk. In a town combat against 2 of the people mentioned in the above scout and that I have heard winge about this fight, they repeatedly shot up one of my characters through various breaches I had suffered, I shot back and blew some heads off and they shot back and killed my character. Good character. I believe they were using pirate cars and characters and had nothing to lose at all.  The only thing to gain infact was the fun, without risk, of being able to shoot at other players, In the end, mine dead. Was this because I killed some non existent character, or probably just heat of the moment competition!? Oh well! I took the risks, and it had its rewards. I could have resigned, but I don't like resigning. Not a great fight from me, I made a lot of mistakes, (I had a bit too much to chug with Mary-Jane Before hand I think). In the end a fun fight! We remember you Mae 'Dae' Perez.
|
||||
|
Some Slacker Posted Dec 20, 2009, 3:46 am |
So, my understanding of this whole fiasco is as follows:
1) When you first start playing you start in Somerset 2) Play some SS town events, perhaps a league or two 3) Rent your antagonist (or horror the marauder or striker) over and over again to scout 4) decide you like the game and want to see more 5) pay $20 for the right of passage to other towns 6) get pvp'd by vets (yes only vets initiate pvp) and lose your stuff and potentially your gangers So what is it that I get for my $20 again? I forget... Now specifiacally about the ZPN squad: Were our tactics flawed? absolutely (calling time outs till the cows came home was an ABHORRANT use of the time out system, as well as our 3vs2 votes for turn time, for this I personally would like to apologize to both Darth and Zoltan) Were we outclassed in every way? absolutely (read cc buzzer with rocket booster in a chase position vs bpu's) Did we think we could get away? absolutely (right up until one bpu crashed, and not being the type to leave a fellow squad member behind to die for us, we turned to fight in the WORST possible spot, maybe not for our peds) Did we want to pay these bullies again? NO FREAKIN WAY! (and certainly not a quarter of a million darkwind bucks, can I help it if I'm rich with a bunch of dead gangers?) Could we have gotten closer to start infighting? (I'll never know, cause we didn't try, but since I was breached at over 110m this seems quite unlikely to me, given our starting position and theirs) Did I enjoy this or any other pvp i've been in? Not a whole lot, and to be honest I start to wonder why I paid 20 bucks to play a game where the only the only thing the 20 bucks opens up is the ability to be attacked at any moment by someone who has had a lot longer and more success in training their gang, gathering resources etc (wasn't the AI a bit (a lot?) dimmer until recently? (well, before like 6 months ago) If my post sounds like whining, so be it. I don't post often because I have no use for name calling or any of the normal things that go on in a forum, but I do feel like something here needs to be fixed. And yes I can see where the vets are bored killing the AI at 120m and would like to try it on players too, but just like the AI, we had no chance of hitting at that range, and no matter what ya'll say, its an advantage. Have any of the pvp'ers played in the pirate vs militia events? I think not, because their advantage is somewhat diminished here... Perhaps I'm just a stupid moronic imbicile who is simply never gonna 'get it' |
||||
|
Some Slacker Posted Dec 20, 2009, 3:57 am |
Yes, Bastiel I did keep shooting at your vehicle in that town pvp event, but you always had the option of simply crying 'uncle' and the shooting would have stopped, it was even asked for once when we had guns trained on your breached side, you opted out/didn't respond to our query. Already having experience with a militia member (and a marshal to boot) firing after crying 'uncle' makes me hesitant to offer, but we did anyway, with implicit instructions to watch out for such an act of pirate-like activity. And yes, believe it or not, my jaw dropped to see that I had killed a nicked ganger with my nobody, I could only shake my head and say he shoulda just given up, why didn't he just give up!?!? You weren't gonna lose the event, as usual we were outnumbered by players, outgunned and outclassed and just tryin to do the best we could, with what we had |
||||
|
Whiskey Posted Dec 20, 2009, 5:09 am |
You miss the point. I am not that new. I am only 6 months younger than you as a subscriber. But, our play styles are very different. PvP holds less than zero interest for me. My suggestions: 1. Let PvP exist in all towns, including SS. 2. Players can choose to be PvP or non-PvP. They may only change this status once per month. All new players are non-PvP by default. 3. If a squad has any PvP members, the squad status is PvP. non-PvP status only works if you are in a squad of all non-PvP players. About CR balancing. I know that my skilled gangers make a huge difference. Any vet that claims their skilled gunners don't make that big a difference is either deluding themselves or has forgotten the heady days when scoring a hit at 80m felt like a major accomplishment. CR balance should take into account ganger skills not jut raw CR score of the vehicle. I suggest something like this: A landy with a raw CR of 240. Add up the gunnery, large guns, and ballistics scores of the landy crew. Let's say this is 400 total. 240*sqrt(400/100)=480. A Windsor II with a CR of 180. Add up the gunner, lg guns, etc of his crew. Let's say this is a total of 900. 180*sqrt(900/100)=540. These two vehicles are about equal. The Landy has better raw CR but the crew of the Windsor will be able to land shots at ranges where the Landy is helpless to return fire. |
||||
|
Zoltan Posted Dec 20, 2009, 5:13 am |
I'm not going to quote anything or anyone, just make my position clear. Yes I'm a vet, Yes I have good equipment and people, and all the more reason to take my warnings in the forums seriously and stay out of BL until your ready. BL was / is / and always will be, the border town of Evan. If you want to come to BL, you better have good gangers, good equipment, and know what your doing. I don't PVP anywhere North of BL unless you ask for it. I will not stop PVPing in BL, so if you want to risk running your goods or training your gangers in BL or South, know the risks. If you don't read the forums, you will have to learn the hard way. I hope more of us will start PVP'ing to make the BL experience and all its benefits the more worthwhile. Some will disagree with my position, but I for one was hesitant to start PVP'ing losing good gangers and equipment held me back. Then I took a break gave it all away, came back and restarted, and with in 6 months made it all back so now the rush I get from playing against another player has me signing up for another year. Sam has always said he wants the game more gritty well I'm here to do what i can.
|
||||
|
*Bastille* Posted Dec 20, 2009, 5:17 am |
Oh! nonononono! Sorry Slackers, I don't hold it against you at all, It was fun, a great battle and thats how it turned out. I have thought about being a pirate a few times in these because there is no real risk. My RP position says I probably shouldn't so thats the main factor in me not. This free risk is probably good PvP encouragement if not abused, and I don't feel abused here at all. (Sorry If I was too direct about this point, my only point being the relative risks, gains losses involved and that these risks probably out way the experience factor and that everything is pretty good as it is) I definitely could have chosen to resign, I took the risk.
Yesterday I took a risk running in the pack during a Pro DR, Lots of hvy gun fire and only low armor on my car, great fun, great risks, had a 20 bulk tank and ended up catching fire and blowing up Great fun, shame it went bang. So sure the more you have, the more you can can risk and the less negatives from that risk overall to gang operations (well DA losing 15 gangers recently would hurt a bit), but they still anyone has a chance to lose their favourite toy and this is always the risk when perma-damage death is concerned. Kinda cool really.
|
||||
|
darthspanky Posted Dec 20, 2009, 6:12 am |
why does it always come down to but the poor noobs. f the noobs they wont be noobs forever | ||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 20, 2009, 6:36 am |
Especially if you (and people like you) drive them off before they ever become veterans. Then they won't be noobs for long - they'll just be ex-players who warn off other people from ever trying Darkwind. Edit to be clear: I'm not just talking about the PvP. I'm talking about the whole attitude. You and Zoltan seem to have taken this position that the South Evan areas are your territory, and woe to anyone else who happens to visit. It's an amazingly anti-social attitude, and even if you're not going out of your way to ruin someone else's fun, that is the impression you're giving. - - - - - Edit for other people: Here's a suggestion, if you want to try to take on the die-hard PvP'ers. I'm sure most of you are familiar with Battletech. There was an old saying that tonnage isn't everything - and it's true. While a 100-ton Atlas can take out most things in a one-on-one fight, it is at a severe disadvantage in other ways. Throw 20 five-ton hovercraft with small lasers on them, and they'll chew it to pieces. They can fire 20 shots a turn - he can only hit 2 targets per turn. The same applies here. If you want to try to take out Spanky and Zoltan, don't try to match them with heavyweight cars. Take in a large herd of cheap disposable cars with cheap disposable characters. They'll kill a few, but you're sure as hell going to chew them to pieces, if you play tactically. Think a Buggy Brigade.
|
||||
|
*sam* Posted Dec 20, 2009, 9:47 am |
I have no idea who the players involved were, but I have been told that one of the pvp attacks being discussed here involved I think 3 'defender' players and 1 'attacker'. The 'defenders' used all of their timeouts, each to the full 5 minutes, essentially just to annoy the 'attacker'.
The is called time griefing and will not be tolerated. The fact that it's not explicitly stated anywhere means I have to let it lie this time, but I will be writing it into the official rules when I get the chance. |
||||
|
Iffler Posted Dec 20, 2009, 10:40 am |
True, But without a realistic learning curve they won't be noobs forever because they won't be playing the game any more. What we would prefer to happen is they aren't noobs anymore because they have had a chance to learn the nuances of the game without leaving for what essentially would be termed 'loss of morale'. |
||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 20, 2009, 10:54 am |
We really need to step away from the noob / vet statements, not all vets PVP. As i just stated in another topic, If PVP is going to lose us subscribers, then it needs a major re think again
Zoltan your posts just look threatening and doesnt serve the topic or yourself any favours. |
||||
|
simonmaxhill Posted Dec 20, 2009, 11:30 am |
re: GW as part of the "safe zone"
My idea of including GW in a PvP-free zone was twofold 1. It is a fairly difficult place to scout/travel and would provide good opportunity for players looking for a PvP-free challenge to experience the game. 2. It makes a vague sort of RP sense, given that there are two truckstops and one of them is called "Gateway". It'd be the gateway to a distinctly less civilized, far more dangerous, and appropriately terrifying world. re: Gro - I agree that the noob/vet language is inappropriate and I'm abandoning the whole viewpoint, since I've already embarassed myself by assuming that TKW was new. In terms of PvP losing the game subscribers, all I can say is that the possibilities of PvP definitely motivate a number of players who have burnt out on many of the other offerings in the game. re: skill levels/fairness - wasn't PvP shut down last time because Shark was using disposable cars/characters to attack anyone that moved? Am I wrong about that? |
||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 20, 2009, 12:25 pm |
Agreed that the majority of those that are leaning towards PVP have nothing else left to attain in the game, so there only avenue for continued play is to PVP but this is normally to the detriment of newer players, there of course would be a simple solution to all this if a gang had a position / point based on there skill, possessions, equipment owned, gang member skill. Then a graded attack system could be put in place, so high end gangs could never attack a single low end/new gang.
BUT of course we haven't such a system or ability to create one ? sam ? lol |
||||
|
*sam* Posted Dec 20, 2009, 12:48 pm |
I don't think a system like this would work in practice, grog.. it would limit those gangs that were allowed to engage each other to such an extent that pvp would never happen. We're discussing this all in the rules council, and will be trying to come up with a solution in the next day or two. |
||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Dec 20, 2009, 1:16 pm |
That could be a good idea? or would it break the spirit of DW? It's realistic for sure.. What if every turn after the start you can offer a truce/bounty at the cost of +5% per turn? but only if both sides accept? if it's denied there can be no further negotiations? |
||||
|
*sam* Posted Dec 20, 2009, 1:23 pm |
I don't think a mid-fight bounty option would be a bad thing, no. It would make the possibility of stealing equipment very low, however.. it pushes pvp attacks into situations where all you're likely to gain is $. Long-term players don't really have a need for more $ do they? | ||||
|
ISHOULDCOCO Posted Dec 20, 2009, 1:43 pm |
Amen, Brother! Having seen mid-PVP execution of un-conscious characters, I never want to be involved in PVP , ever. But I do want PVP to be easier and more accessible If your not going to PVP in DW then you should expect to be limited - no camp membership and only ever leave SS in a fast car, while the server is quiet (and while dressed as a small harmless animal) @ *Sam* I always got the impressions that PVP was part of user created content . So stuff like predating on newbs should trigger the acceleration of affliations and associations and eventual 'taking od sides'. The thing I could never get my head around was both sides living in the same city ? COCO |
||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Dec 20, 2009, 1:45 pm |
What if the negotiation happened in a pop up [we now have the technology ]with multiple choices?
wouldn't have to be about only money could be cars too? edit: and counter offers |
||||
|
*Tinker* Posted Dec 20, 2009, 2:13 pm |
With regards to CR influenced by skill of gangsters, if any, I hope it will only take into account the top combat skill, so people with mediocre cross training don't get the shaft, also all specialisms should be kept out of the equation to keep it more real |
||||
|
*Ninesticks* Posted Dec 20, 2009, 2:36 pm |
Sprinting some to catch up with the multiple posts. As I recall PvP was shut down last time for various reasons (well after Shark had stopped playing too).
For goodness sake let's not have an over-reaction and lose PvP again, it can be a healthy fun thing to do. Whilst I may disagree with some of Z's arguments as to why he is doing it (as in some gritty avenging angel of Sam doesn't wash with me) I don't have a problem with him doing it. Whilst there is perhaps maybe a loss of morale for those that have lost, it would far better to see it as a challenge rather than a dead end. If you feel your crew isn't good enough train them up in GW, Texan, Sarsfield, Elms, Somerset, Firelight or Shanty. Just because one or two players are trying to interdict one town doesn't have to mean the end of your DW fun in the slightest. Or if it absolutely must be BL that you scout out of, go prepared or make some allies who can help you out or go hunting your enemies yourselves. If there has to be a change then close the northern triangle to PvP. Personally though, I think this is a storm in a teacup which is likely to cause an unwarranted knee-jerk reaction. Don't try and factor skills in, it will go horribly wrong. In fact if the players involved the so hotly debated incident would be kind enough to PM me the details of what they had in the fight (gangers and vehicle details) it would be very interesting to set it up as a DW Tactical event. |
||||
|
Zoltan Posted Dec 20, 2009, 2:57 pm |
Me Threatening hehe, I guess roleplaying should be left to the roleplaying forums. Sorry. However my positions stand. I worked along time in the game to get my characters to a level where they were successful in BL. Why shouldn't others have to as well before they can start looting the rares. If they have attained this level they know how to train most effectively and after losing a buzzer or two or three, and a bunch of 150+ gangers, feel confident in there abilites to fight anyone or NPc gang in Evan. If I came across threatening, I'm sorry. It wasn't my intent in any forum other than the role playing. AS for the time out griefing, yes it was annoying, but I knew they combined had 45 minutes of timeouts, and then running the turns to a max, so I was prepared to wait it out, if need be. If something could be done in this regard it would be appreciated, not to the people involve one party has already apologized but to the situation in general. I don't believe character levelling should be integrated, for the reasons, above, why should we be penalized for what we know or have worked to attain. *On a side note the event is useless to watch, which was too bad, because when the battle did begin it was brilliantly played. Is there a way to record only action phases in a recording not all the turns wasted on timeouts? Event ID:S163501 | ||||
|
*sam* Posted Dec 20, 2009, 3:03 pm |
I think it's probably a difficult thing to automatically catch, but what I'm considering is to have the gameserver notify me (and possibly the marshals) whenever there's a pvp event in which timeouts are all used up and in which the game turns keep running close to their fully allotted time. It's a grey area to identify, so will require human intervention to assess each case.. this is however probably unavoidable with any suspected case of griefing in any form since it's essentially a socially-defined rather than game-rules-defined activity. |
||||
|
Zoltan Posted Dec 20, 2009, 4:13 pm |
Lol looks like I'll be spending some time on here then to realize my dream of PVP
|
||||
|
Big Daddy Posted Dec 20, 2009, 4:14 pm |
As an aside, part of the reason I like the idea of some way to ensure "no pvp" on an encounter is the same reason I often scout solo lately. First, I would expect a pvp to take a lot longer on average (time shenanigans aside). Sometimes, I just don't have a couple of hours to play. Second, I am scouting solo due to a couple of personal issues - I frequently need to take the 60 minute timeout during an event. Usually only 10 or 15 minutes, but more than once on many scouts. And lately my main computer has been very unreliable, with abrupt shutdowns. These only seem to happen while playing DW (and seem to be my vid card overheating, replacement on its way). Both of these situations are pretty unfriendly for any other player, squadmate or foe. But when I'm solo, there isn't anyone else to annoy.
PVP seems great - I've done 5 or 6 of the militia vs pirates events (losing most, usually with my own crew and car). I don't want to lose the option entirely, but I think there are multiple valid reasons for both sides to have a choice in participating. |
||||
|
*sam* Posted Dec 20, 2009, 5:06 pm |
Yep, it's certainly a quagmire BD.. and there are many different circumstances and valid arguments on both sides. | ||||
|
Nekojin Posted Dec 20, 2009, 6:58 pm |
This is generally known as Stockholm Syndrome - "I had it hard, so I'm going to make sure that others coming after me have it hard, too." As it stands, their PvE events aren't easy - according to at least one of the victims, they were losing money over the previous week even before you jumped them. So yes, they ARE having it hard, and learning. Edit: Big Daddy put his finger right on the main point: PvP works best when both players are explicitly choosing to participate in it. In EVE Online, players have full access to all of the largest NPC facilities across the galaxy without having to engage in PvP. They have to voluntarily choose to enter "low-sec space" in order to PvP (exceptions are made for Corporation Wars), and there are LOTS of warnings about the hazards of low-sec space. There are advantages to joining a player Corporation/faction, but there are very, very few who ever join a Corporation without full knowledge and awareness of what they're getting themselves in for. The city events are a good example of PvP done right - everyone is explicitly consenting to fighting other players, and usually on a more-or-less even playfield. If there's someone you don't want to fight, you can usually back out of an event at no cost if you see them joining. Open-world PvP means a net loss for most of the "defenders." Sam, possibly one of the best things you can do now on this would be to take a look at all of the PvP battles over the last, say, 3 months, and get a percentage of how often the attackers win. I'm expecting that it's going to be quite high. |
||||
|
Joel Autobaun Posted Dec 20, 2009, 8:44 pm |
The mid fight truce is called "Surrender" and it works just fine. Don't let them care bear it up, you are the meanest nastiest, PvP liking, Dev there is
You can solve the TO abuse by only giving each side 3 timeouts total and cannot change the time per turn at all. I'd still call 3 TOs in a row - abuse. I am disappointed that Triple SSS didn't get a thrill from that fight...his team did exceptionally well. I Personally dislike Forum PvP myself and love in game stuff (to the point I've turned some league events in to serious PvP events). I personally like to PvP enemies only(either camp enemies - not so serious, or people who I have a grudge against). Later I plan to mostly PvP and I'd like to be able to do it without having to calculate n00b factor and questioning "am I doing the right thing". Hell Zoltan and Darth are making enemies and they know it, there is always some backwash, even if these two can actually handle that no problem, not everyone can. I don't see a problem with what Zoltan and darth did at all, I wish Darth would refrain from the smack talk, but that's about it. PvP is still very rare. No PVP toggle. Go play another game guys, this is a PvP "Friendly" game. Lots of other games to go around seal bashing bunnies and getting 2xp in, without a care in the world. Or you can play this game in SS. In all seriousness it's only BL people have to worry about right now. |
||||
|
simonmaxhill Posted Dec 20, 2009, 9:01 pm |
I think one thing to definitely put into perspective that this whole explosion was the result of a single bad PvP event in conjunction with a small handful inconveniences for some other players who don't want it happening to them constantly.
And as far as I can tell, only one of the three players who got reamed in the PvP are demanding a total revamp. Everyone else seems to be saying, "If PvP were constantly happening, it'd ruin my game experience." Of course, the PvPers ardent defense of it makes it sound like they're constantly on the prowl for it. I'd say my ratio of forums posts to PvP events is about 10-1. |
||||
|
ISHOULDCOCO Posted Dec 20, 2009, 9:23 pm |
Maybe what DW really needs is expectation management and well defined boundaries.
A pop up that states -
? COCO |
||||
|
Fealty Lost Posted Dec 20, 2009, 11:37 pm |
PvP options:
1) I've said it before; allow PER vehicle surrenders. If a player's vehicle is most surely in a breachable position, he can surrender THAT vehicle. If PvPing is 'for the thrill' as so many say, then that vehicle should now be safe [[ barring the occassional 'oops' shot ]] because the other player really wants the loot, not a hulk. Players who continue to attack a surrendered vehicle are obviously 'griefing' and should be addressed for same. The main reason for avoiding PvP is because people don't want to lose their stuff. 2) After a PvP combat, the winner can KEEP one vehicle as loot. All others can, at the loser's discretion, be purchased back at the current SHOP buy price. Gangers are purchased back at basic $5000 per ganger plus $1000 per Specialism. So, you still have the thrill of PvP, and the loser doesn't suffer a total loss or have his guys sold to FL. 3) Bonusses to Fame and Rep are still given as per Sam's current system. ALL players who participate in PvP gain PvP Bonus Points which can be used [[ and which never deplete over time ]] to purchase special/rare equipment in the Shop which can ONLY be purchased using PvP BP's. A simple stimulus to PvP for both sides. And to those vets' who say skills shouldn't be included into CR...PUHLEEZE. Example: Noob player gets two vehicles to vets 1. Noob attacks, because, hey, he has twice the firepower! Vet' opens up at 150 meters. Kills first vehicle before it goes another 4 turns. Second vehicle, near 100 meters...gets off a few ineffectual shots before vet' player smokes him in two turns. Yes, skills should count but again, even at 3 vehicles to one, a vet' player could easily smoke off a non-vet player, while suffering minimal damage himself. And it's the same with the AI. It's not that it's gotten easier...it's simply because a vet' with his good equipment can smoke off the AI before they even get close. I know, I've seen it on many occasions and been duly impressed and GLAD I wasn't the AI. So, how about Uber AI gangs with matching equipment and skills? ...oh, and self-destruct buttons on all that tasty equipment. I feel for the long-time players. They've put in the time and effort to get where they are but beating up on new players or players who've been around a couple months isn't a challenge...it's just griefing wrapped up in nicities. No way the lowly regular player ever wins. And for vet' players who want to play each other: see the above suggestions. Nothing should be taken away from these guys for all their hard work...but on the other hand, nothing should be taken easily away from those trying to get to those heights, either, while trying to enjoy some PvP for the same reasons as the vets. Anyway, that's about it. My .02, but as usual, worth about $100. |
||||
|
Big Daddy Posted Dec 22, 2009, 1:37 pm |
So, there's a new "Open for PvP?" setting on my "Gangs" page now, with a popup explaining it a bit.
It includes a throttle on switching the setting, once every two weeks. This seems like a big obstacle, at least it will be for me at times. Is it trying to prevent some problem? Like a player makes an attack, then switches himself out of pvp mode and can then scout without risk of pvp retaliation? Or does it just seem fair for going to PvP to force all of a gang's squad's to risk it (not just the hunters, but also travel and cargo squads), and this is a slightly indirect way to do that? |
||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 22, 2009, 1:44 pm |
Sam will explain all in the Game Announcement thread shortly, he is implementing changes to how PVP is performed, watch for his announcement | ||||
|
*sam* Posted Dec 22, 2009, 1:50 pm |
Precisely this |
||||
|
*Ninesticks* Posted Dec 22, 2009, 2:29 pm |
May I suggest a visible flag in the lobby for those who are open for pvp?
Will help players decide who they scout with as much as who they may target. |
||||
|
*Grograt* gary.r.horder@gmail.com Posted Dec 22, 2009, 2:31 pm |
can it be the shape of a target
|