Aenor
08-21-2011, 03:53 PM
<&Rogean> Given an FFA Server with an +/- 8 level difference.. the problem becomes that people will have healers hide just under the level difference (level 41 with 50 max, or 51 with 60 max) to avoid combat with level 60's but still be able to help their level 60 friends.
<&Rogean> I'm considering a dynamic system that will adjust the level you can attack and be attacked by based on those acts. If you are level 41 and you heal a level 50, it will expand the level you can be attacked by up to level 50. Vise versa, if a level 50 heals a level 41, he can then be attacked by level 41's (However, the level 50 will not be able to attack the any 41 until they attack him
<&Rogean> training will probably still be against the rules
<&Rogean> a no rules server is just frustrating for everyone
<&Rogean> well we are leaning towards making it against the rules to bind camp.. and I'm not sure about LnS, but I know how pvp players like to ignore those rules. The GM's don't have time to babysit everyone.
<&Rogean> we probably will have an xp loss system on pvp deaths
FFA 8 Level Spread.
Any player doing a beneficial action towards someone outside their level range will have their range increased (or decreased) to match the level of the player they are helping. This does not mean the player doing the helping will instantly be able to attack players outside their range. It will mean that any player within the new range will be able to attack the player that helped and got his range increased. Once an aggressive action is made by a player outside the first player's level range, they will then be able to attack back.
EXAMPLE:
Level 50's are fighting it out. A level 41 Cleric comes by. His name will show up a certain color to the level 50's that means they can't attack each other (this may be blue). That level 41 Cleric decides to heal one of the level 50's. His max attack-able range gets increased to level 50 (from 49). On the level 50's screens, the Cleric's name will now turn a different color (possibly orange) to indicate that they may attack that player but not be attacked (yet) by him.
If one of the level 50's runs over and attacks the 41 Cleric, the name color would update to red to indicate both players are attack-able to each other.
Clause 1: Let's call the 41 Cleric Player A, and the level 50 attacking him Player B. Let's say there is a player C that is also a level 50. As it currently stands, Player C could chose to attack Player A but until he does so, Player A cannot attack Player C. However, if player C decides to heal Player B (Another level 50 currently engaged to Player A) he will inherit Player B's PVP 'links' you could say, meaning anyone pvp enabled to Player B outside his range would also become pvp enabled to Player C.
I'm fairly confident this would result in some fun competitive PVP, so if you have negative feedback for this system it better be constructive. It may be difficult to understand at first, but the name colors will alleviate this in-game and it won't be hard to learn it. This eliminates the problems of players helping others outside their level range, without completely removing their ability to do so.
Cliffnotes: You can't sit outside the level range of being attacked and heal your friends without their enemies being able to attack you.
The 'attack-able' cap for the player doing the healing will be expanded up to the player being healed's level + 8.
I'm not opposed to certain zones being total FFA, particularly raid only ones. I'm hesitant to do that on zones that include group content, such as Solusek B.
I don't have a problem flagging raid only zones but when we get into regular zones that people can experience in, such as SolB and Permafrost, or in Kunark it would be Emerald Jungle, Skyfire, Dreadlands. The latter 3 have a lot of low-mid level players traveling through. We can't make those zones level ffa.
[Flagging the area from FGs and beyond PvP like the arena is] probably do-able.
Respawning with gear will probably never happen.
So far we've only discussed the XP Loss. I don't think we will have item or coin loot.
Rogean I hope you are ready to dedicate more staff (with thicker skins) as active in-game support to sort through the frequent PvP conflicts and babysitting.
OOR healing was a minor issue on VZTZ. It's a problem, yes, but I can count on one hand the number of times that actually came up.
Training is the big one. You can count on this happening constantly, and players raging at staff about it. Null and I literally spent hours brainstorming of ways we could somehow hardcode to stop or prevent training.
Hacking is the other killer and what burned me out both as a player and staff member. Maybe you have a way to prevent this - it sounded like Secrets threw you some kind of bone there - and that was a luxury VZTZ never had. Any kind of hack or exploit on a red server is going to be far more damaging and impactful than it would be on the blue server.
Hacking won't be a problem.
We're still tossing ideas around internally [regarding resists]. Perhaps Null can comment on this and get some suggestions/feedback.
The benefit of running two different servers - It's easier to add guides that play on one server on the other to help with things and not have to worry *too* much about there being any relations to the players.
pvp veterans:
So I hear the desire for no item loot is the likelihood of being gang-killed/item camped? Another reason I heard was that people bag their items before they die. I am indifferent to the loot system, but I would like to understand the reasoning.
What if players couldn't take primary, secondary, or no-drop, but could loot a droppable worn item, or a droppable bagged item?
Additionally, what if this was an option? Similar to a priest of discord on pve, if you could have the option of toggleable item pvp? So an itempvp player could loot itempvp players but itempvp vs normal pvp would not allow looting.
Like I said before.. I'm indifferent to the loot system, but I'm curious why people would not want item looting.
<&Rogean> I'm considering a dynamic system that will adjust the level you can attack and be attacked by based on those acts. If you are level 41 and you heal a level 50, it will expand the level you can be attacked by up to level 50. Vise versa, if a level 50 heals a level 41, he can then be attacked by level 41's (However, the level 50 will not be able to attack the any 41 until they attack him
<&Rogean> training will probably still be against the rules
<&Rogean> a no rules server is just frustrating for everyone
<&Rogean> well we are leaning towards making it against the rules to bind camp.. and I'm not sure about LnS, but I know how pvp players like to ignore those rules. The GM's don't have time to babysit everyone.
<&Rogean> we probably will have an xp loss system on pvp deaths
FFA 8 Level Spread.
Any player doing a beneficial action towards someone outside their level range will have their range increased (or decreased) to match the level of the player they are helping. This does not mean the player doing the helping will instantly be able to attack players outside their range. It will mean that any player within the new range will be able to attack the player that helped and got his range increased. Once an aggressive action is made by a player outside the first player's level range, they will then be able to attack back.
EXAMPLE:
Level 50's are fighting it out. A level 41 Cleric comes by. His name will show up a certain color to the level 50's that means they can't attack each other (this may be blue). That level 41 Cleric decides to heal one of the level 50's. His max attack-able range gets increased to level 50 (from 49). On the level 50's screens, the Cleric's name will now turn a different color (possibly orange) to indicate that they may attack that player but not be attacked (yet) by him.
If one of the level 50's runs over and attacks the 41 Cleric, the name color would update to red to indicate both players are attack-able to each other.
Clause 1: Let's call the 41 Cleric Player A, and the level 50 attacking him Player B. Let's say there is a player C that is also a level 50. As it currently stands, Player C could chose to attack Player A but until he does so, Player A cannot attack Player C. However, if player C decides to heal Player B (Another level 50 currently engaged to Player A) he will inherit Player B's PVP 'links' you could say, meaning anyone pvp enabled to Player B outside his range would also become pvp enabled to Player C.
I'm fairly confident this would result in some fun competitive PVP, so if you have negative feedback for this system it better be constructive. It may be difficult to understand at first, but the name colors will alleviate this in-game and it won't be hard to learn it. This eliminates the problems of players helping others outside their level range, without completely removing their ability to do so.
Cliffnotes: You can't sit outside the level range of being attacked and heal your friends without their enemies being able to attack you.
The 'attack-able' cap for the player doing the healing will be expanded up to the player being healed's level + 8.
I'm not opposed to certain zones being total FFA, particularly raid only ones. I'm hesitant to do that on zones that include group content, such as Solusek B.
I don't have a problem flagging raid only zones but when we get into regular zones that people can experience in, such as SolB and Permafrost, or in Kunark it would be Emerald Jungle, Skyfire, Dreadlands. The latter 3 have a lot of low-mid level players traveling through. We can't make those zones level ffa.
[Flagging the area from FGs and beyond PvP like the arena is] probably do-able.
Respawning with gear will probably never happen.
So far we've only discussed the XP Loss. I don't think we will have item or coin loot.
Rogean I hope you are ready to dedicate more staff (with thicker skins) as active in-game support to sort through the frequent PvP conflicts and babysitting.
OOR healing was a minor issue on VZTZ. It's a problem, yes, but I can count on one hand the number of times that actually came up.
Training is the big one. You can count on this happening constantly, and players raging at staff about it. Null and I literally spent hours brainstorming of ways we could somehow hardcode to stop or prevent training.
Hacking is the other killer and what burned me out both as a player and staff member. Maybe you have a way to prevent this - it sounded like Secrets threw you some kind of bone there - and that was a luxury VZTZ never had. Any kind of hack or exploit on a red server is going to be far more damaging and impactful than it would be on the blue server.
Hacking won't be a problem.
We're still tossing ideas around internally [regarding resists]. Perhaps Null can comment on this and get some suggestions/feedback.
The benefit of running two different servers - It's easier to add guides that play on one server on the other to help with things and not have to worry *too* much about there being any relations to the players.
pvp veterans:
So I hear the desire for no item loot is the likelihood of being gang-killed/item camped? Another reason I heard was that people bag their items before they die. I am indifferent to the loot system, but I would like to understand the reasoning.
What if players couldn't take primary, secondary, or no-drop, but could loot a droppable worn item, or a droppable bagged item?
Additionally, what if this was an option? Similar to a priest of discord on pve, if you could have the option of toggleable item pvp? So an itempvp player could loot itempvp players but itempvp vs normal pvp would not allow looting.
Like I said before.. I'm indifferent to the loot system, but I'm curious why people would not want item looting.