Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

PvP Open or Faction Locked?

    • 1795 posts
    December 20, 2016 1:50 PM PST

    In the last stream Brad had indicated there will be plenty of NPC factions, but not player factions. Kilsin has confirmed this in other threads, such as players of any race will be able to team and guild with each other.

    But, as far as the PvP servers, will this hold true? Would this make PvP completely open and not faction-based? Can you just attack anyone?

    I have looked at the map and they do seem to separate the presumably good races on a different continent than the presumably evil races. I wonder if this has anything to do with PvP plans.

    • 1001 posts
    December 21, 2016 7:10 AM PST

    I hope not. I hope its Open World PvP, meaning anyone vs anyone. I want the feeling of never being safe on a PvP Server as even another Human can be evil. 

     

    I do think their should be "Safe Zones" like Cities, but outside that. Allow it to be a free for all. Make having friends to help you a requirement on PvP servers. Allow good players who like certain races to be any race, and don't limit them at all :).

     

    Plus the Idea of finding a bunch of people to go hunt down and kill so KS'ers, or trouble makers is just fun to think of lol... IE - If a group of two or three are going around slaughtering low level players. I'd like to think a group of 20 who be enough to track them down and return the favor :). 

     


    This post was edited by Saicred at December 21, 2016 7:10 AM PST
    • 2064 posts
    December 21, 2016 7:48 AM PST

    I prefer faction/alignment, personally. DAoC and EQ2 have had the best PvP experiences for me.

    Rather have level restrictions as well, than not. +/- 8 levels, for instance.

    • 1455 posts
    December 21, 2016 7:43 PM PST

    I think an +/- 8 with hard factions is probably going to be the most popular. I would personally FFA +/- 8 levels, with soft coded factions where you lose reputation with your own race or allies if you kill them outside of /guildwar.

    Soft coded factions discourage pointless ganking and help players establish friendships and guilds among their allies. It also helps from the immersion standpoint where being a member of a particular race actually means something and enemy races will naturally be a more likely opponent.


    This post was edited by Dullahan at December 21, 2016 7:46 PM PST
    • 77 posts
    December 22, 2016 3:36 AM PST

    The best PVP experience i had was playing EQ on the Vallon Zek server i think it was. it was Deity based so there were 3 factions really. Good, Neutral, Evil. you can still group with anyone at anytime but you have to be careful because AE's will hurt those of an opposing faction. There was a level range of 8 +/- who conned white to you, was always a toss up on if they were weaker or stronger but made it so much more fair than a lv 60 druid camping lv6 noobies (minimum pvp level) just because he can.  just wanted to share my best pvp server experience with everyone. also the deity based 3 faction system made it to where some of your own race could still pvp you. and there was no agnostic. 

    • 300 posts
    December 22, 2016 3:43 AM PST

    I prefer the Tharridon / Sartok ruleset from Vanguard. FFA pvp, can attack anyone who is above lvl 6. No faction or level restrictions.

    Team/Faction based PvP servers like in WoW do not do it for me. What if I want to become friends with someone from the other faction? What if I want to kill someone who is in my own faction? What if I want to play an "evil" race and my guild is the "good" faction? It's way too restrictive for my liking.


    This post was edited by Wellspring at December 22, 2016 3:49 AM PST
    • 19 posts
    December 22, 2016 6:47 AM PST

    Furty said:

    The best PVP experience i had was playing EQ on the Vallon Zek server i think it was. it was Deity based so there were 3 factions really. Good, Neutral, Evil. you can still group with anyone at anytime but you have to be careful because AE's will hurt those of an opposing faction. There was a level range of 8 +/- who conned white to you, was always a toss up on if they were weaker or stronger but made it so much more fair than a lv 60 druid camping lv6 noobies (minimum pvp level) just because he can.  just wanted to share my best pvp server experience with everyone. also the deity based 3 faction system made it to where some of your own race could still pvp you. and there was no agnostic. 

     

    Believe that was Sullon Zek. I was on VZ and it was divided into 4 teams based on race. There was the Blue team (Humans, Erudites, Barbarians), the Yellow team (Wood, Half, and High Elves), the Purple team (Halflings, Dwarves, Gnomes), and the Orange team (Dark Elves, Ogres, Trolls, Iksar). I loved the team based PVP as it created so many interesting situations. I remember all the purist guilds and the moratorium on cross teaming. Though I do like the above suggestion of FFA with faction hits for killing your own people outside of a war. This would seem to be a good deterrant against pointless ganking while preventing the issue of immy healing and cheesing the team mechanics. All in all I'm super pleased they will be giving some consideration to a PVP server as it adds (for me) an entire other layer of suspense and flavor to the world.

    • 2441 posts
    December 22, 2016 6:59 AM PST

    I prefer factions - I would rather kill for a cause than for greed or personal dislike or the thrill of it. Then again I have only dabbled briefly in pvp and that in faction-based games (DAOC, Rift).

    But even a carebear knows that faction-based games almost inevitably relax the boundaries, and that fairly quickly. Within a few years if not sooner you have shared banks, mail and grouping with sworn undying enemies. At least on pve servers.

    • 300 posts
    December 22, 2016 8:28 AM PST

    dorotea said:

    I prefer factions - I would rather kill for a cause than for greed or personal dislike or the thrill of it. Then again I have only dabbled briefly in pvp and that in faction-based games (DAOC, Rift).

    But even a carebear knows that faction-based games almost inevitably relax the boundaries, and that fairly quickly. Within a few years if not sooner you have shared banks, mail and grouping with sworn undying enemies. At least on pve servers.

    I would rather kill for a cause too, but I do not find the game telling me who I am supposed to kill or not kill, simply based on their choices at character creation, as a real cause...

    If the person joined a rival guild that griefs our members, then killing them is for a cause, not that they selected to play a Wood Elf and I am an Ogre.

    • 1795 posts
    December 22, 2016 8:39 AM PST

    Wellspring said:

    dorotea said:

    I prefer factions - I would rather kill for a cause than for greed or personal dislike or the thrill of it. Then again I have only dabbled briefly in pvp and that in faction-based games (DAOC, Rift).

    But even a carebear knows that faction-based games almost inevitably relax the boundaries, and that fairly quickly. Within a few years if not sooner you have shared banks, mail and grouping with sworn undying enemies. At least on pve servers.

    I would rather kill for a cause too, but I do not find the game telling me who I am supposed to kill or not kill, simply based on their choices at character creation, as a real cause...

    If the person joined a rival guild that griefs our members, then killing them is for a cause, not that they selected to play a Wood Elf and I am an Ogre.

    Well, it is a role-playing game, afterall.

    • 300 posts
    December 22, 2016 8:48 AM PST

    Beefcake said:

    Wellspring said:

    dorotea said:

    I prefer factions - I would rather kill for a cause than for greed or personal dislike or the thrill of it. Then again I have only dabbled briefly in pvp and that in faction-based games (DAOC, Rift).

    But even a carebear knows that faction-based games almost inevitably relax the boundaries, and that fairly quickly. Within a few years if not sooner you have shared banks, mail and grouping with sworn undying enemies. At least on pve servers.

    I would rather kill for a cause too, but I do not find the game telling me who I am supposed to kill or not kill, simply based on their choices at character creation, as a real cause...

    If the person joined a rival guild that griefs our members, then killing them is for a cause, not that they selected to play a Wood Elf and I am an Ogre.

    Well, it is a role-playing game, afterall.

    You can certainly roleplay as an evil Wood Elf that kills Ogres on sight. I personally just don't like it when the server ruleset dictates the teams in PvP. What if you wanted to play a Wood Elf who helps Ogre's? In the team based PvP servers as implemented in other MMO's, you couldn't even communicate with the other team, let alone group with them.

    • 466 posts
    December 22, 2016 8:55 AM PST

    For simple PVP fun I love open world full on PVP.  But this is a great PVE game so I would much rather have faction based PVP with levels like EQ2 did.

    • 93 posts
    December 22, 2016 10:35 AM PST

    Expect it to be open.  You'll form your own alliances.

    • 4294 posts
    December 22, 2016 11:36 AM PST

    Why not just have a server for each form of PvP? It's super easy for VR to make new servers/rulesets if the demand is there. Sometimes "both" is the best answer haha


    This post was edited by Bazgrim at December 22, 2016 11:37 AM PST
    • 1795 posts
    December 22, 2016 2:00 PM PST

    Bazgrim said:

    Why not just have a server for each form of PvP? It's super easy for VR to make new servers/rulesets if the demand is there. Sometimes "both" is the best answer haha

    I would like as few servers as possible. Not a fan of segregating the population, especially in a group dependent game. Need the large population. 

    • 645 posts
    December 22, 2016 2:03 PM PST

    Original lore (not sure if its still in effect) you had 3 factions of 3 races each IIRC

    Ogres, Myr, and Trolls (Skaar) Evil

    Humans, Archai, and Gnomes Neuts

    Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings  Goods

     

     

    • 19 posts
    December 22, 2016 7:07 PM PST

    Hum. Maybe it's due on a part to where I rolled, but I never saw "politics" living up to its advertised allure in those FFA ecosystems. Therefore, my answer is I think, the unfavourable one. Faction warfare.

    This is despite the glaring weaknesses that system could suffer from. Faction imbalances and an inability to "get square" with anyone that wrongs you. However, and personally mind, I find FFA's downsides to be worse.

    The so-called "toxicity" that is often associated with this playstyle tends to sprout more freely in turn on average. After all, anyone can kill anyone... and just like the portent that's issued with owning a firearm, "you're more likely to kill someone close to you", by that I mean "allies". In games like ArcheAge it just became a nuisance. Attacks against my own faction rather than the "real" enemy were a lot more tiresomely commonplace than I'd liked... at least when I was playing. I was better off buried constantly behind enemy lines. :p

    For some, the additional cutthroat dynamism is essential for their enjoyment. I think though for quite a lot of folks it's just irksome. Again personally, I prefer knowing at a glance when a potential target crops up in my vicinity. The red name just sends me into the appropriate mood. No overwrought deliberation, it's just a nigh instant knowing that there's a threat dancing around me. Now it's up to me how I want to handle it within that moment. Do we just lock gazes then move on for more quiet observation, or do we engage there and then? It maintains a nice clean fluid pattern of thought and motion.

    In games such as Aion the red-is-dead'ness didn't seem to stop people communicating across faction. I would regularly strike up a frivolous round of heckling when I'd get the opportunity, whether that was by popping up a temp shop with a speech bubble or just bending the lingo garbler.

    My answer is ultimately fuelled by sake of convenience and preserving momentum, as opposed to being addled by more questioning; that includes ease of justifying the cause. Unrealistic? Yes, yes it is... but are that many really into having their neck hairs prickled in paranoia with a perpetual "will they? won't they?" dialogue going through their head when scrutinizing what could be a harmless lamb of a target in the aftermath? Well, habitual random gankers are obviously not gonna think that... but yeah.

    Maybe it's my "fighting the good fight" mantra speaking out loud here... but, in the event of FFA I suppose I'll be throwing on my "huntard becomes hunted" mantle as I stalk in the shadow of a budding serial killer. That is also an ethic I'm quite enamored by~.

    I'm not picky when it comes to level restrictions on when you can touch a target, since I don't know any better other than mostly unrestricted to totally unrestricted.  Not that it applies to my plight, since those that abuse level differences wind up on my hit list. ;)

    tl;dr Faction-based.

    • 1455 posts
    December 22, 2016 7:55 PM PST

    Wellspring said:

    You can certainly roleplay as an evil Wood Elf that kills Ogres on sight. I personally just don't like it when the server ruleset dictates the teams in PvP. What if you wanted to play a Wood Elf who helps Ogre's? In the team based PvP servers as implemented in other MMO's, you couldn't even communicate with the other team, let alone group with them.

    They could always have a process of defecting to another side similar to EQ2. Though it should be a semi-permanent decision and not something you can flip back and forth between on a daily basis as it was in EQ2.

    • 2064 posts
    December 22, 2016 9:22 PM PST

    Dullahan said:

    They could always have a process of defecting to another side similar to EQ2. Though it should be a semi-permanent decision and not something you can flip back and forth between on a daily basis as it was in EQ2.

    Betraying became too easy as EQ2 progressed. I think as long as they kept the process very long and difficult it'd be perfectly fine to allow for unlimited changes, don't you agree?

    • 1455 posts
    December 22, 2016 10:24 PM PST

    Liav said:

    Dullahan said:

    They could always have a process of defecting to another side similar to EQ2. Though it should be a semi-permanent decision and not something you can flip back and forth between on a daily basis as it was in EQ2.

    Betraying became too easy as EQ2 progressed. I think as long as they kept the process very long and difficult it'd be perfectly fine to allow for unlimited changes, don't you agree?

    My very long and difficult may differ greatly from that long and difficulty of others. I think you should have a hard timer of at least a few months (several in-game years) before you can switch back. To do it more frequently it should be something on par to getting ally with Cabilis turning in 14,000 bone chips.

    • 2064 posts
    December 22, 2016 10:47 PM PST

    Dullahan said:

    My very long and difficult may differ greatly from that long and difficulty of others. I think you should have a hard timer of at least a few months (several in-game years) before you can switch back. To do it more frequently it should be something on par to getting ally with Cabilis turning in 14,000 bone chips.

    I'd rather it not be as boring as that, but maybe as time consuming.

    I think spending a real world week working yourself towards changing alignment is more than reasonable. I wouldn't personally want to see a hard timer that long. What purpose does it serve other than arbitrarily saying "no, you can't do that yet"?

    • 1455 posts
    December 22, 2016 11:12 PM PST

    Liav said:

    Dullahan said:

    My very long and difficult may differ greatly from that long and difficulty of others. I think you should have a hard timer of at least a few months (several in-game years) before you can switch back. To do it more frequently it should be something on par to getting ally with Cabilis turning in 14,000 bone chips.

    I'd rather it not be as boring as that, but maybe as time consuming.

    I think spending a real world week working yourself towards changing alignment is more than reasonable. I wouldn't personally want to see a hard timer that long. What purpose does it serve other than arbitrarily saying "no, you can't do that yet"?

    Not entirely arbitrarily. There should be serious advantages and disadvantages to breaking from your alliance. If you just betrayed your people, it should be a believable period of time before you are able to work your way back into their graces. IMO, the other alternative would be to make it take months to build back up each individual faction. I think people would generally be much happier with a time obstruction, followed by a few weeks of faction questing and mob slaying than to be able to flip back immediately and have to go through that process for an extended period of time.

    The other alternative is to just have it like EQ2, where you can game the system. I want to see consequences for your actions to return with Pantheon.

    • 2064 posts
    December 22, 2016 11:23 PM PST

    Dullahan said:

    Not entirely arbitrarily. There should be serious advantages and disadvantages to breaking from your alliance. If you just betrayed your people, it should be a believable period of time before you are able to work your way back into their graces. IMO, the other alternative would be to make it take months to build back up each individual faction. I think people would generally be much happier with a time obstruction, followed by a few weeks of faction questing and mob slaying than to be able to flip back immediately and have to go through that process for an extended period of time.

    The other alternative is to just have it like EQ2, where you can game the system. I want to see consequences for your actions to return with Pantheon.

    I agree with consequences, just not several real life months worth of consequences.

    If you betrayed your people, it'd be more believable that they'd only take you back once, and likely never again regardless of time passed. It's just another example of believability not necessarily being an adequate justification for something, to me.

    Time is tedium. Effort is challenge. While the system should have elements of both, tedium should only be used sparingly in my opinion.

    • 1455 posts
    December 22, 2016 11:39 PM PST

    Liav said:

    I agree with consequences, just not several real life months worth of consequences.

    If you betrayed your people, it'd be more believable that they'd only take you back once, and likely never again regardless of time passed. It's just another example of believability not necessarily being an adequate justification for something, to me.

    Time is tedium. Effort is challenge. While the system should have elements of both, tedium should only be used sparingly in my opinion.

    Time is the only factor that is indiscriminate. As such, it creates balance or a governor for everyone's achievements. It's important for creating both a sense of punishment, and a sense of reward. Better players can minimize it's impact, but no one can entirely avoid it. This creates balance making it neither too easy for those with more skill and time, nor too hard for those with less.

    Effort without time is not really effort; it's just skill. Skill alone should never be the factor that determines success.

    So yes, I feel like the time aspect is necessary for people to respect the process.

    • Moderator
    • 8556 posts
    December 23, 2016 1:54 AM PST

    Sevens said:

    Original lore (not sure if its still in effect) you had 3 factions of 3 races each IIRC

    Ogres, Myr, and Trolls (Skaar) Evil

    Humans, Archai, and Gnomes Neuts

    Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings  Goods

     

     

    You have a good memory man, but we actually scrapped that idea, we had intended on using that grouping to only have a few starting areas but now we are making one for each race, so it is back to being open and not locked to specific groups. :)