FFA vs Faction PVP

[Heywood]

Originally Posted by jbs89 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Its another Classic rules set and just because you can't handle it doesnt mean it isnt classic EQ; EQ is a hard game, maybe WoW would be easier for you

the irony is, WoW is a faction-based pvp game, which is what youre proposing. it also sounds like you want nec/sk on one side, and clerics/pal on the other. So once again youre contradicting yourself.


and you totally proved my point, guild vs guild pvp is the simplest and easiest way to run a server and prove to have the least amount of headaches. I'm speaking from experience, VZTZ had a population of a bit over 300+ at times (but in reality it was closer to 175-200 due to 2-boxing). And like Gnar said on another post, VZTZ was on a garage box that lasted 4 years and we had little dev and gm support . now with proper support like this one, I'm sure we can get 300+ again, probably 400+ all 1-boxing.


VZTZ was probably one of the more, if not most, successful pvp servers ive seen for an everquest emulated server and im basing my opinions of the 3 years i played there. I take it you've had some experience with an eq emu pvp server? Please, do tell of your experiences. Hopefully I'll be able to better understand the benefits of a faction-based pvp server, other than "it was like that in 1999".

[wehrmacht]

Originally Posted by pasi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If the goal is to have a healthy population, teams iss pretty necessary. Nothing (not even Kringe zonecmd'n) will deter people more than not having people to start with.

Yea, this is what I've said about 5 billion times now. Since most TZVZ players are dumb as a hammer, let me explain it in a new way for them. You get two choices:

Would you rather play on a 300 population FFA server or a 500+ population teams server?

[Bombfist]

Would you rather play on a 300 population FFA server or a 500+ population teams server?

You keep saying how even the teams would be, so, I'd rather be able to kill 299 people instead of 250.


DUMn AS A HAMMA YA'LL

[Pudge]

Originally Posted by wehrmacht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yea, this is what I've said about 5 billion times now. Since most TZVZ players are dumb as a hammer, let me explain it in a new way for them. You get two choices:

Would you rather play on a 300 population FFA server or a 500+ population teams server?

auto-guild. FFA but whenever you start a new char, be automatically joined to "newb guild" which lets you connect with other players. i understand teams will let you really have more comradery, but teams hurt a server long-term imo. another poster suggested teams up untill a certain level.. i never thought of this and it is a unique idea.. might work but then again detracts from certain aspects of pvp. i would say just leave it at ffa, have an auto-guild to help new players, and leave it at that. as long as ppl have a sense of community, they will likely continue on the server (unless discouraging things happen to them on a daily basis - such as trains, if they are allowed).

[Envious]

Teams is better, there is no real debate. Its only that teams will prolly not work with a pop of 50, 100, 150, 200, maybe not until like 500? The real problem with them, is everyone will end up neut or good for druids and bards. Hard to do some of the later content (Kunark is later for me... Lol) without the resist buffs... and pvp without having the chance at the resist buff is suck.

And I loved all the foreigners... Scarlet Colored Vampires were always up until 10am to pvp with, Skorpy and all the russians showing up "Privet", "Group?". Teams did foster some camaraderie for me.

[Envious]

Bombfist, if you want so many targets, you should be a proponent of teams. Cause this is how it really works out.
500 Total players

200 Goods
100 Neuts
200 Bads

Play the neuts, and you have 400 people that cant even join your guild to get away from you.

Hell, most likely with how everyone knows how fucking godly bards are, it will be like this
225 Lights
225 Neuts
50 Darks


And the dark team had clerics... just no rangers / bards / druids / pallies.

[wehrmacht]

Stop with the TZ bullshit. Three teams is less balanced than two and it's too much of a risk not knowing what the population will be. If you want teams, two is the only viable choice.

[Xantille]

Originally Posted by Envious [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Teams is better, there is no real debate. Its only that teams will prolly not work with a pop of 50, 100, 150, 200, maybe not until like 500? The real problem with them, is everyone will end up neut or good for druids and bards. Hard to do some of the later content (Kunark is later for me... Lol) without the resist buffs... and pvp without having the chance at the resist buff is suck.

And I loved all the foreigners... Scarlet Colored Vampires were always up until 10am to pvp with, Skorpy and all the russians showing up "Privet", "Group?". Teams did foster some camaraderie for me.

I loved SCV, Dark Gothic (was guilded w/ them for a while), and broken-English guildchats everywhere. "Mem blur fuk" on SotG's Nagafen raid was a Xantille-Altis production. I was an honorary dirty communist after that.

With regards to two teams, I'm still concerned that a majority of the server will be on my team in some fashion. Three teams gives me more options, but then you risk one team being completely undermanned. FFA is still the best format, imo.

I would not be averse to hardcoded teams during early levels, since I'm sure people will be grinding their fucking faces off for the first couple weeks of the server. I have no idea how hard this would be to implement.

In before retarded Wehrmacht post below.

[Aerist]

Originally Posted by Xantille [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

With regards to two teams, I'm still concerned that a majority of the server will be on my team in some fashion. Three teams gives me more options, but then you risk one team being completely undermanned. FFA is still the best format, imo.

I think this pretty much summarizes what a teams server would end up becoming. In an ideal world yes there would be two nice balanced teams and a few top guilds on each team competing. However reality is there will be 1 top guild, and after a few months of not getting loot, the people playing the opposing team will just jump ship to the side getting the loot.

If its going to be teams, 3 teams would be my suggestion, however FFA is your only real chance to not blue it up on the red server.

You say FFA means less population, and you're right, because if you had teams pvp there would be a LOT of bluebies playing on the winning team camping pixels without fear because the top guild can't kill them.


my 2cp

Shody

[wehrmacht]

Originally Posted by Aerist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

because if you had teams pvp there would be a LOT of bluebies playing on the winning team camping pixels

Wow, you just described TZVZ down to the letter and it was FFA. How many times did Heresy do Hate and Fear? A million? How many times did Rexx do warrior epic? Like 8?