Increasing PvP Participation, Making PvP Important

For TL;DR - See bottom segment

Hi Everyone,

Below is a suggestion on how to correct what I consider to be a problem with PvP...the impact that PvPing has on the world map in comparison to PvE.

The rough format of the idea is followed by an example of how it could work, the figures used are just for the example, I'm sure that even if the idea is considered to be a good one, those specifics would have to change.

---

Concept

Starting on XX/XX/XX at XX:XX server time, PvP will be amended with the following rules:
At the start of every cycle (or other pre-determined time limit) Factions may accrue "PvP points" (referred to simply as "points" hereafter) whenever a member of their Faction wins a PvP match against a member of the opposite Faction.

The Faction that earns more points by the end of the cycle will gain a significant amount of Faction influence on all of their frontline regions AND any neutral or enemy-controlled regions adjacent to them. This influence will be offset by any walls on regions that are impacted.

At the start of each cycle a Faction is chosen that would get this benefit in the event of a tie.

Players will receive more points for victories in higher tiers.

To stimulate PvP activity (and to ensure that a Faction does not simply refuse to PvP when they take a lead) the Faction that is in the lead at any given point in time will lose points if they do not have a member enter the PvP queue in a region controlled by the opposite Faction (or a neutral territory) every XX minutes and remain there for at least XX minutes. Further, when a match is made, it must be accepted without exception. (The 15-second timer would be nixed.)

If the leading Faction fails to have at least one member meet the requirements to not be penalized, the Faction will first lose the number of points they might get from a T1 win. The timer will reset and each additional failure will increase the penalty, topping out at T5 levels. Note that the penalty will increase regardless of whether the infractions were consecutive or not. If a player from the leading Faction does enter the queue for the required time, the timer will reset. A Faction can have negative points.

---

Example

At 00:00 server time on 4/12/14 the feature starts. Light is informed that they will win if by 07:59:59 they have more or equal number of PvP points as Dark. Dark is informed that to win they must earn more PvP points than Light.
PvP wins against members of the opposite Faction in T1 award 1 point, T2 - 2 points, T3 - 3 points, T4 - 5 points, and T5 - 8 points, per player on the winning team.

By 04:00 server time, Light has gained a 10 point advantage. However, for every 20 minute interval a Light player must enter into the PvP queue on neutral or enemy-controlled region for at least 3 consecutive minutes. The penalties increase as previously stated topping out at 8 points.

At 07:59:59 server time the Light Faction has more points than the Dark Faction. The Light Faction has 7 frontline regions which border 8 Dark-controlled regions. Each of those 15 regions receive 5% Light influence...that influence will count toward the current cycle (00:00:00->07:59:59) such that it may have Factional control implications.

Points reset to 0 at the start of each new cycle.

---

Disclaimer?

That is the gist of it, I can answer specific questions if people have them...I may not have an answer to every question (I'll just have to do my best).

It has a 'few' flaws...I'd talked to some people that noted a number of them immediately. (Some flaws are due to racial balance and the tier system, those need to be worked out regardless...the flaws I'm talking about are specific to my suggestion which is meant to address the issue that PvP doesn't seem important enough to bother with.)

One specific individual had a very good idea, it incorporates the "make it matter" portion of my idea, but otherwise shares little in common with my suggestion.

That said, I like his suggestion as it does not have many of the flaws that mine does, may well be much more enjoyable, and get more people to PvP overall...so I hope he posts his idea here in the near future.

---

TL;DR

Every cycle players that win in PvP fights against members of the other Faction will gain points for their own Faction. Higher tiers and 2v2 award more points. The Faction that earns more points every cycle will be awarded a significant amount of influence to all regions on their frontline and adjacent enemy/neutral territories. (Points are not CPs and they reset every cycle)

The Faction that has a lead during a cycle is compelled to send a member into the queue to face the other Faction every so often (or they will lose points) to give the trailing Faction a chance at catching up.

I like the core of the idea, which is make PvP matter. Im not sure that it needs to be, that complicated as described above, but the gist of rewarding the faction that won more often with an extra 5% of influence is great.
As you already mentioned race balance is crucial for this idea. As a matter of fact race balance is crucial for a couple of upcoming implementations such as prestige system and PvP vs AI as well.

I'll reiterate my position as often as I deem necessary or until everyone says oh no it's Dren with his don't tread on me PVE ideas. I have no problem with encouraging more pvp and giving it some more inducements in the form of more cp/prestige, whatever. I do have a problem with the philosophical position that the game is broken if everyone isn't pvping. I just don't believe it's true and I think the people who want to play casually need an advocate. <Dren Waves> That would be me. I suspect from conversations I've had that the PVE community spends a fair amount of cash on the game and have earned the right not to be second class citizens just because they don't want to play individual king of the hill. Even second part of the title of the post MAKING pvp important implies a lack of choice: a choice which I will fight with fervor to retain. So my basic premise is: entice people to pvp all you want. Just allow no to be an acceptable answer.

Dren

I do not see why pvp should matter more/have a relative effect which stands in no relation to the input.

it is a game mode, like solos and coops. If people want to play like that, fine, but if they don't, equally fine.

the mechanism described above is insulting the pve players. taking from the example -> 5% over 8 regions. this equals about the daily output of a hardworking high-end pve'er.

if it is a question of the pvp'ers wanting more recognition, ask the devs nicely for quick implementation of prestige, so you have a flag to wave.

Drennalin wrote:

I'll reiterate my position as often as I deem necessary or until everyone says oh no it's Dren with his don't tread on me PVE ideas.  I have no problem with encouraging more pvp and giving it some more inducements in the form of more cp/prestige, whatever.   I do have a problem with the philosophical position that the game is broken if everyone isn't pvping.  I just don't believe it's true and I think the people who want to play casually need an advocate.   <Dren Waves>   That would be me. I suspect from conversations I've had that the PVE community spends a fair amount of cash on the game and have earned the right not to be second class citizens just because they don't want to play individual king of the hill.  Even second part of the title of the post MAKING pvp important implies a lack of choice: a choice which I will fight with fervor to retain.  So my basic premise is: entice people to pvp all you want.  Just allow no to be an acceptable answer.

Dren

This game is still mainly PVE even for the most notorious pvpers like myself. Probably 15 % max. of the CP I've earned stem from PvP. So I dont think that there are any grounds for your concerns yet.

Claudandus wrote:

Drennalin wrote:

I'll reiterate my position as often as I deem necessary or until everyone says oh no it's Dren with his don't tread on me PVE ideas.  I have no problem with encouraging more pvp and giving it some more inducements in the form of more cp/prestige, whatever.   I do have a problem with the philosophical position that the game is broken if everyone isn't pvping.  I just don't believe it's true and I think the people who want to play casually need an advocate.   <Dren Waves>   That would be me. I suspect from conversations I've had that the PVE community spends a fair amount of cash on the game and have earned the right not to be second class citizens just because they don't want to play individual king of the hill.  Even second part of the title of the post MAKING pvp important implies a lack of choice: a choice which I will fight with fervor to retain.  So my basic premise is: entice people to pvp all you want.  Just allow no to be an acceptable answer.

Dren

This game is still mainly PVE even for the most notorious pvpers like myself. Probably 15 % max. of the CP I've earned stem from PvP. So I dont think that there are any grounds for your concerns yet.

I spend most of my BC time pvping. But most of the CP I've earned since Olympus opened a while back has still been from PvE. So seconded.

Claudandus wrote:

I like the core of the idea, which is make PvP matter. Im not sure that it needs to be, that complicated as described above, but the gist of rewarding the faction that won more often with an extra 5% of influence is great.
As you already mentioned race balance is crucial for this idea. As a matter of fact race balance is crucial for a couple of upcoming implementations such as prestige system and PvP vs AI as well.

Agreed, it does not need to be as complicated as I made it...a simpler system is better. (Hoping the person I spoke to really does post their idea.)

Drennalin wrote:

I'll reiterate my position as often as I deem necessary or until everyone says oh no it's Dren with his don't tread on me PVE ideas.  I have no problem with encouraging more pvp and giving it some more inducements in the form of more cp/prestige, whatever.   I do have a problem with the philosophical position that the game is broken if everyone isn't pvping.  I just don't believe it's true and I think the people who want to play casually need an advocate.   <Dren Waves>   That would be me. I suspect from conversations I've had that the PVE community spends a fair amount of cash on the game and have earned the right not to be second class citizens just because they don't want to play individual king of the hill.  Even second part of the title of the post MAKING pvp important implies a lack of choice: a choice which I will fight with fervor to retain.  So my basic premise is: entice people to pvp all you want.  Just allow no to be an acceptable answer.

Dren

Hi Dren,

I take it that you only do PvE, same as me (I didn't even coop for a long while back when I was on Erevos (I would have wanted infinite solos)). The intent here isn't to force everyone to PvP, that would be a tragedy and a wrong.

However, I think that the battle modes should have real impact on the world map. The impact of PvE is clear...PvP is almost nonexistent, it's a peripheral...which strikes me as incredibly odd being that it is the only place where the Faction's directly fight.

In real terms, if 100 PvP's were fought and split 51:49...that difference is practically nothing...I'm looking to make that difference meaningful NOT overpowering to the point that PvE doesn't matter or trumped by PvP. This might seem like a thin line, I know...but the distinction is important.

There is no implication that there is no choice. I choose not to PvP because it doesn't matter (among other things), I choose to solely PvE because it does matter (also, among other things). There is no good reason that I can think of for why they cannot both be meaningful contributors to the world map.

However, if you believe the suggestion makes PvE meaningless/insignificant, I'd like to talk about that...because that should not be the case. (e.g. Is the influence too great, is the frequency of too often, etc.?)

It is funny that you say you don't want PvErs to seem like second-class citizens...because to me that is how I would categorize the treatment of some PvPers in the game (maybe not in forums). That they are selfish, that they are giving CPs to the enemy, that they would help the Faction more if they PvE'd, etc. I don't think that is right either...is there no middle ground where both contributions are important?

I agree, no should be an acceptable answer...that goes for PvPers, PvErs and all those in between as well.

(Again, this is all coming from a strict PvE player...who has spent a bit of cash on the game, that doesn't (despite how others may see me right now) want the game to be all about PvP)

Edit:

P.S. My idea does have flaws...I'm hoping that others have a better idea that strikes a good balance between PvE and PvP importance, is simpler (as Claud suggests), and is something more people would care to try out...but also feel like they could contribute through other avenues if they do not wish to partake.