Should the server provide "Best of the Best" style PvP + rewards?

[Zuranthium]

Re-posting this from earlier because there was never a good discussion about it and I feel the server needs additional means of promoting meaningful gameplay:

I want to see planned, structured PvP battles. 6v6, 12v12, and 24v24. Every week. Each guild forms their squads and you PvP for the rights to have a head-start on a Raid target (whatever the winning team picks). A player can only be used for one squad; a guild would need to have a total of 40 people logging on during guild battle day in order to field full teams of each type. If an uneven number of guilds are registered into one of the PvP areas (say 3 guilds or 5 guilds), then the previous week's winner gets a bye through the first round bracket. The 6v6 and 12v12 fields would have equipment restrictions, to provide a more level playing field. The terrain teams fight on would vary every week.

This would make it so the game requires more actual SKILL. The best PvP teams would be rewarded. The only way to measure who are truly the best is by fighting with even numbers (and even equipment). That's how every sport in existence operates. Anyone who is opposed to such a thing doesn't actually care about team PvP. There should be a leaderboard that tracks the # of victories a player has achieved and players would individually receive additional rewards after something like every 2 or 3 victories.

Note that these structured battles would only contest 3 raid targets, so there would still be plenty of content left to contest in the "regular" way. Lots of people obviously enjoy the guerilla-warfare type of World-PvP and it should have an important place in the game.

The structured battles would also naturally help to "even out" the number of people that are in each guild, since only a maximum of 40 people per guild would be able to complete in them (and thus potentially receive the additional rewards). This means that "regular" PvP contentions for Raid targets would be much more intense and frequent...which is what everyone playing on a PvP server should want. If you don't want that, then you're basically just playing on a PvP server in order to beat up on easy opponents: ie, an artificial way to feel like you're accomplishing more in life than someone else.

[Colgate]

would b cool but staff too lazy to do something like this on a weekly basis

[Uuruk]

would b cool but staff too lazy to do something like this on a weekly basis

Ban

[Not Salem]

EQ is fun + unique because it's PvE with PvP added on. No 1v1 arena kill is as satisfying as harm touching someone at 40% dying to two mobs already.

[Colgate]

EQ is fun + unique because it's PvE with PvP added on. No 1v1 arena kill is as satisfying as harm touching someone at 40% dying to two mobs already.

dunno man gotta say that sweeping the botb against VP geared nerds with my tattered mantle and pegasus pants after being called a nonfactor who doesn't leave a zoneline and relies on broken tstaff procs while they cried about me being a hacker was probably some of the most satisfying shit i've done on this server

[Kergan]

Re-posting this from earlier because there was never a good discussion about it and I feel the server needs additional means of promoting meaningful gameplay:

I want to see planned, structured PvP battles. 6v6, 12v12, and 24v24. Every week. Each guild forms their squads and you PvP for the rights to have a head-start on a Raid target (whatever the winning team picks). A player can only be used for one squad; a guild would need to have a total of 40 people logging on during guild battle day in order to field full teams of each type. If an uneven number of guilds are registered into one of the PvP areas (say 3 guilds or 5 guilds), then the previous week's winner gets a bye through the first round bracket. The 6v6 and 12v12 fields would have equipment restrictions, to provide a more level playing field. The terrain teams fight on would vary every week.

This would make it so the game requires more actual SKILL. The best PvP teams would be rewarded. The only way to measure who are truly the best is by fighting with even numbers (and even equipment). That's how every sport in existence operates. Anyone who is opposed to such a thing doesn't actually care about team PvP. There should be a leaderboard that tracks the # of victories a player has achieved and players would individually receive additional rewards after something like every 2 or 3 victories.

Note that these structured battles would only contest 3 raid targets, so there would still be plenty of content left to contest in the "regular" way. Lots of people obviously enjoy the guerilla-warfare type of World-PvP and it should have an important place in the game.

The structured battles would also naturally help to "even out" the number of people that are in each guild, since only a maximum of 40 people per guild would be able to complete in them (and thus potentially receive the additional rewards). This means that "regular" PvP contentions for Raid targets would be much more intense and frequent...which is what everyone playing on a PvP server should want. If you don't want that, then you're basically just playing on a PvP server in order to beat up on easy opponents: ie, an artificial way to feel like you're accomplishing more in life than someone else.

You can already fight over raid targets. No need to have GMs hold WoW style arena battles in EverQuest.

And this game never has and never will require "skill". It's 90% prep/gear and 10% execution.

[Derubael]

If you want to put together a comprehensive list of rules, regulations, team sizes, restrictions, allowed equipment, tactics, and items, we may be able to get something like this put together.

Just laying out the logistics alone for this kind of event is a nightmare once a month let alone once a week. You can find my 2v2 duelist tournament thread from a while back over on blue to get an idea of how extensive these "any class vs any class team battles" can be, because there are so many different equipment scenarios/items to consider that may be "unfair" or will just make the fight boring.

It's not like we haven't thought of doing this kind of thing, and I'm certainly not knocking your idea - we do something similar with Thursday Night Fights. It's just very time consuming to put together and run (time that really needs to be spent on CSR stuff as often as possible - we are swamped right now)

Thanks for the suggestion, and I was being serious in my above post - if you put together a full list of rules, hash them out with the community so they are 'perfect' or as close to it as possible, and you'l be one step closer to having this happen.

I've thought about bringing the Duelist tournament over to Red on multiple occasions, but we want to get Enchanter BotB out of the way first - then we'll do duelist on red and blue.

[Not Salem]

I remember one time I killed this noob named Teeks in City of Mist while he was fighting a mob, he later joined Nihilum stating the reason that he app'd to them was because I killed him while engaged in the act of PvE and that such acts were dishonorable and showed the true colors of a guild (Azrael)

[Colgate]

blue server duelist tournament was gr8 fun for me and jeremy

[Pudge]

I remember one time I killed this noob named Teeks in City of Mist while he was fighting a mob, he later joined Nihilum stating the reason that he app'd to them was because I killed him while engaged in the act of PvE and that such acts were dishonorable and showed the true colors of a guild (Azrael)

lawl

[Mac Drettj]

EQ is fun + unique because it's PvE with PvP added on. No 1v1 arena kill is as satisfying as harm touching someone at 40% dying to two mobs already.

Trudat

[thugcruncher]

Rules:

No Regen Equip: Rubi/Iksar BP/Fungi

No Tstaff/Trollichs

No Bards

[bigshowtime]

Rules:

No Regen Equip: Rubi/Iksar BP/Fungi

No Tstaff/Trollichs

No Bards

Also no moving, spells or abilities ... Each player must turn auto attack on until the opponent dies or he himself dies

[derpcake]

Also no moving, spells or abilities ... Each player must turn auto attack on until the opponent dies or he himself dies

ds potion OP as fuck.

[mtb tripper]

Also no moving, spells or abilities ... Each player must turn auto attack on until the opponent dies or he himself dies

[Clark]

Ban

[Jib]

item loot and variance would b cool

[Clark]

item loot and variance would b cool

[Mac Drettj]

variance? u in the wrong forum

[Clark]

I remember some PvP event held in OOT in like 2010 that was really fun. May have been 2011.

[Laugher]

I like this idea- itd give a platform for official victories/losses to be highlighted, perhaps a rookie bracket for 50-55 and a pro bracket 56-60; could do one a week of varyingteam sizes (ex week 1 2v2 week 2 4v4) in a given month. TnF vids were one of the reasons i ended up playing here in the first place, why not continue to give players the opportunity to showcase themselves and their skills in a youtubed weekly tourney

[Zuranthium]

If you want to put together a comprehensive list of rules, regulations, team sizes, restrictions, allowed equipment, tactics, and items, we may be able to get something like this put together.

Just laying out the logistics alone for this kind of event is a nightmare once a month let alone once a week. You can find my 2v2 duelist tournament thread from a while back over on blue to get an idea of how extensive these "any class vs any class team battles" can be, because there are so many different equipment scenarios/items to consider that may be "unfair" or will just make the fight boring.

For the equipment, would it be possible to make it so that everyone in the 6v6 and 12v12 fights automatically zones into the fight with the same equipment, as determined by their class?

That would make it extremely easy with regards to "balancing". Then for the 24v24 fights, it would just be anything goes, which also doesn't require any additional balancing.

[Psykes]

For the equipment, would it be possible to make it so that everyone in the 6v6 and 12v12 fights automatically zones into the fight with the same equipment, as determined by their class?


This would require all people involved that are signed up to have extensive no rent gear created for each individual class, or create a plether of items to be spawned. Usually when spawning items you have to do them individually unless they are created in a seperate data base to pull from pre-spawn that was written before the event.

On my server, I did custom class/races for individuals, gear and the like....it was quite tedious but it made it fun for the individuals that played there....we had Vah Shir Paladins, Dark Elf Rangers, Wood Elf Clerics, Troll Monks...hell even had some people as Centaurs, goblins & Aviaks as their race...and had to change the gear pieces themselves to fit the race/class combos for each person.

[Kergan]

Hmm a game with arena style pvp where everyone has access to the same gear and skill is the determining factor in victory.

http://www.shadowplaygaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/csgo.jpg

[Zuranthium]

Counterstrike is hardly the epitome of skill-based gameplay.

Also, some people simply enjoy a fantasy setting. What's also great about this genre is that it can inherently create a greater depth of gameplay in PvP because "magic" allows you to create a whole myriad of different characters and effects, which leads to a great amount team tactics and character interplay.

This would require all people involved that are signed up to have extensive no rent gear created for each individual class.

Thanks for that info.

Wouldn't it actually be very easy, though, to simply add items into the game database called "PvP Short Sword of the Ykesha" and so forth, that are just clones of existing items with no-Rent tags?

[Kergan]

Counterstrike is hardly the epitome of skill-based gameplay.


http://www.esportsearnings.com/games

Agree to disagree.

[Gaffin 7.0]

cs is all skill son gtfo

[HippoNipple]

This shit isn't happening. Just pk for fun and give up on trying to get GMs to make some artificial setting to make people play with you. EQ is supposed to be somewhat of a sandbox. Do your own shit.

[Zuranthium]

Why are you pointing to a money chart as if that equals skill in gaming, Kergan?

Also, there are different skills in gaming. Things like Magic: the Gathering are purely cognitive, whereas shooters and other games aren't as much about that and instead also measure physical aim/reflexes/how quickly and constantly you can click buttons or a movement pad.

Then you have things like Guild Wars 1, the best PvP game ever, which combines the cognitive "deck building" and decision-making of Magic the Gathering with real-time play and extensive teamwork.

Everquest PvP has some things in common with Guild Wars 1. All spell casters have a "skill bar" of 8 skills, so you need to make decisions before the fight about exactly what you want on your skill bar. There are many classes to choose from, so you also have to think about your team composition, and once you get into the fight there is the melee/caster/debuff/healer dynamic happening.

Everquest PvP is extremely primitive compared to Guild Wars 1 PvP, of course, but the greater focus of this style of gameplay for Red99 is actually to improve the entire game as a whole. If you limit the amount of people per guild who are able to compete for these "Best of the Best" prizes (which should be hard-to-acquire PvE items), then we would see a greater number of guilds in the game. There wouldn't be as much incentive to form the giant zerg guilds, because the players wouldn't be getting the benefits.

With zerg guilds extinct, the entire game would become more involving for everyone. The PvE side would become more of an actual game again, because you'd have less people to use and would need to actually put more thought and strategy into fights, and World-based PvP would become much more constant and exciting.

[Mac Drettj]

Didn't read

What's the elevator pitch?

[Kergan]

Why are you pointing to a money chart as if that equals skill in gaming, Kergan?

Also, there are different skills in gaming. Things like Magic: the Gathering are purely cognitive, whereas shooters and other games aren't as much about that and instead also measure physical aim/reflexes/how quickly and constantly you can click buttons or a movement pad.

Then you have things like Guild Wars 1, the best PvP game ever, which combines the cognitive "deck building" and decision-making of Magic the Gathering with real-time play and extensive teamwork.

Everquest PvP has some things in common with Guild Wars 1. All spell casters have a "skill bar" of 8 skills, so you need to make decisions before the fight about exactly what you want on your skill bar. There are many classes to choose from, so you also have to think about your team composition, and once you get into the fight there is the melee/caster/debuff/healer dynamic happening.

Everquest PvP is extremely primitive compared to Guild Wars 1 PvP, of course, but the greater focus of this style of gameplay for Red99 is actually to improve the entire game as a whole. If you limit the amount of people per guild who are able to compete for these "Best of the Best" prizes (which should be hard-to-acquire PvE items), then we would see a greater number of guilds in the game. There wouldn't be as much incentive to form the giant zerg guilds, because the players wouldn't be getting the benefits.

With zerg guilds extinct, the entire game would become more involving for everyone. The PvE side would become more of an actual game again, because you'd have less people to use and would need to actually put more thought and strategy into fights, and World-based PvP would become much more constant and exciting.

I'm not going to comment on most of your post other than to say I completely disagree with it and it is so ridiculously non-classic and against the core of EQ I don't even know why you bother posting it because it has a 1000% chance of never happening...

That being said:

Why are you pointing to a money chart as if that equals skill in gaming, Kergan?

Because the skill cap is so high you can actually have competitive gaming, and therefor prizes awarded. You really need to be a professional level e-sport gamer to take home cash. Only games with an exceptionally high skill cap can function in a cash for wins environment and attract professional level gamers. In a low skill cap game you lack the ability to consistently win and so the best gamers won't play your game. It's the same reason why there are professional poker players but no professional slots players.

[Zuranthium]

I'm not going to comment on most of your post other than to say I completely disagree with it and it is so ridiculously non-classic and against the core of EQ

It's not against the core of EQ in the least. Exactly the opposite.

The way people play Red99 is against the core of EQ. The game is supposed to be about adventure, danger, teamwork, and SKILL. All of that gets removed when you just zerg.

What I propose would help to bring back exactly what the game is supposed to be about.

Because the skill cap is so high you can actually have competitive gaming, and therefor prizes awarded. You really need to be a professional level e-sport gamer to take home cash.

Yes, but many of those games are not the epitome of skill (nor fun) in gaming. They are just the most POPULAR.

Magic the Gathering is far better than Hearthstone, for example. Hearthstone simply has a better online interface and is easier to play, hence why it is doing well.

The same thing can be said about League of Legends. It is the #1 game on that list, but it is far below other games in terms of skill and how rewarding team-based gameplay can potentially be.

Only games with an exceptionally high skill cap can function in a cash for wins environment and attract professional level gamers. In a low skill cap game you lack the ability to consistently win and so the best gamers won't play your game. It's the same reason why there are professional poker players but no professional slots players.

A dumb statement.

If a game with a low skill cap requires very little monetary investment and gives people a chance at winning money, then there will be people who play it "professionally".

Playing slots requires significant investment, generally, and also has no skill involved at all. You can't compare a no-skill game (aka, lottery) to a low or mid-skill game. Also, just because a game requires some amount of skill doesn't mean it is a great game.

There is additionally the aspect of time investment. Some low-skill games require a huge time investment to become "elite" (that's what p99 is, currently).

[Kergan]

It's not against the core of EQ in the least. Exactly the opposite.

The way people play Red99 is against the core of EQ. The game is supposed to be about adventure, danger, teamwork, and SKILL. All of that gets removed when you just zerg.

What I propose would help to bring back exactly what the game is supposed to be about.



Yes, but many of those games are not the epitome of skill (nor fun) in gaming. They are just the most POPULAR.

Magic the Gathering is far better than Hearthstone, for example. Hearthstone simply has a better online interface and is easier to play, hence why it is doing well.

The same thing can be said about League of Legends. It is the #1 game on that list, but it is far below other games in terms of skill and how rewarding team-based gameplay can potentially be.



A dumb statement.

If a game with a low skill cap requires very little monetary investment and gives people a chance at winning money, then there will be people who play it "professionally".

Playing slots requires significant investment, generally, and also has no skill involved at all. You can't compare a no-skill game (aka, lottery) to a low or mid-skill game. Also, just because a game requires some amount of skill doesn't mean it is a great game.

There is additionally the aspect of time investment. Some low-skill games require a huge time investment to become "elite" (that's what p99 is, currently).

Disagree with every single thing you just said, just gonna leave it alone.

[Psykes]

Wouldn't it actually be very easy, though, to simply add items into the game database called "PvP Short Sword of the Ykesha" and so forth, that are just clones of existing items with no-Rent tags?

Whoever ran the event server side would still have to spawn them for each person, writing a code for character/account id's would work, but only the 1st time they logged onto their character for a no rent pack of gear

[Zuranthium]

Why would you have to write a code for any particular character? Can't you just spawn the items and then de-spawn them when the PvP day is over?

[Farzo]

Great idea OP but people will find a reason to whine. Then the people donating their time to run it will lose their will and /quit.

[Bazia]

isnt OP the guy strydur said he was going to ass rape for not immediately giving his alt a port

[Syft 2.0]

And this game never has and never will require "skill". It's 90% prep/gear and 10% execution.

So why isn't Nizzar the Grandmaster, instead of Colgate, and how come you have zero kills on your VP geared toon? And died to a guy in Rags...

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h266/syft13/Aborted_zpsf462c4ba.jpg (http://s66.photobucket.com/user/syft13/media/Aborted_zpsf462c4ba.jpg.html)

still haven't figured out that your just an awful player who should never comment on things they don't understand?

[Derubael]

Why would you have to write a code for any particular character? Can't you just spawn the items and then de-spawn them when the PvP day is over?

Sure...

#gi 12345
#gi 12344
#gi 12343
#gi 12342
etc...

And we would have to do that for each character. The simpler solution would be to throw up an NPC with a quest trigger like the beta buff bots, with an additional text trigger to reset the equipment afterwards. Interestingly enough Nilbog has recently expressed some interest in doing some custom event scripting, so that we can have events more regularly and with less effort on both servers. That's probably still a ways down the road, but it makes a setup like you guys have been talking about much more doable.

[pvpness]

pras!

[DRAGONBAIT]

Because the skill cap is so high you can actually have competitive gaming, and therefor prizes awarded. You really need to be a professional level e-sport gamer to take home cash. Only games with an exceptionally high skill cap can function in a cash for wins environment and attract professional level gamers. In a low skill cap game you lack the ability to consistently win and so the best gamers won't play your game. It's the same reason why there are professional poker players but no professional slots players.


man u always speaking as if u knew everything..do u really have any clue about competitive gaming? im going to throw in here a example, see if u get it theyre both 2 popular games, hon and lol, wich one has a deeper skill cap? wich one is hardest? yet wich one attracts more players and bigger prizes? now think for urself. ur whole argument falls downs by itself.

[Kergan]

TLDR

[Nirgon]

This is called item loot.

It gives people "something to do" other than raid.

The Test of Tactics awarded some shit. Best was Prismatic Blade of Turning (http://everquest.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?item=56973). It was issued to Ssok the Strategist of RZ, pras be his bard greatness for defeating the bluebie SCUM.

[Kergan]

Had many a battle with and against Koss, a PVP icon.

[Zuranthium]

The simpler solution would be to throw up an NPC with a quest trigger like the beta buff bots, with an additional text trigger to reset the equipment afterwards. Interestingly enough Nilbog has recently expressed some interest in doing some custom event scripting, so that we can have events more regularly and with less effort on both servers. That's probably still a ways down the road, but it makes a setup like you guys have been talking about much more doable.

That would be really, really great...and necessary for this server to be relevant.

The playerbase needs a huge incentive to stay in medium-sized guilds and thus create a bunch of different warring factions that are competitive with each other. It not only vastly improves the frequency and quality of the PvP, but also significantly improves the quality of the PvE since you can't just zerg everything down with a huge blob of players.

[Kergan]

Yep until Velious where the encounters are tuned around having a huge blob of players.

Welcome to EverQuest.

[Mac Drettj]

who bumped this turd?

[Gnomegrown]

if you want meaningful pvp you are playing the wrong game

eq pvp was never meant to be taken seriously as there is no progression or reward of any kind, hence the simpletons it attracts

case closed.

[Clark]

if you want meaningful pvp you are playing the wrong game

eq pvp was never meant to be taken seriously as there is no progression or reward of any kind, hence the simpletons it attracts

case closed.

Afraid you're wrong. I experienced a ton of meaningful pvp on Rallos Zek and Zek after they merged all the pvp servers together. Also item loot was very rewarding and kept things interesting.

[Clark]

This is called item loot.

It gives people "something to do" other than raid.

[Zuranthium]

Yep until Velious where the encounters are tuned around having a huge blob of players.

Most of them aren't, assuming max gear and coordination. For the ones that are, that's when guild ALLIANCES become (more) important.

[Gnomegrown]

blob to win till plane of time, sorry

[Buhbuh]

Do you play here anymore, Zuranthium?