open world pvp

[kardisk]

Well funcom did two servers one pve other pvp and i don't understand whay not just do one server with enable and disable world pvp with a 5m delay wend you close word pvp it would feet all and simple why is that white and black vision of this game?

[Chaman-bourru]

Open-world pvp is about general atmosphere and risk. It's not about "ooh i have a full zerg now i want to go do some open-world PvP". Being able to chose depending on your mood, the odds, the oppenent wheter to go in PvE or PvP mode is just complete crap. If you do something alike only consensual, organized PvP would occur. You'd better just remove PvP ruleset all together then.

If that ever happens it would definetly be the time for me to hang up my axe above the fire place.

[Religolibri]

Vehl has said everything. That's how hyboria is. You can always be attacked by a ranger with gps

[kardisk]

For hardcore pvp'rs funcom put up rage so mutch requested by the so caled pvp'rs were they go and log a char time to time hell with hard core pvp don't exist any more.

By now we should have at lest cross minis and dungeons i read that on some letters some time ago and nothing they give free transfers klap klap bravo!

Many ppl spend to much time and money on this game and like this all the blades will be above the fire spot

[Radek87]

Nothing to do with open pvp, at last fury will be merge into crom so =)

[Kurt2013]

Open-world pvp is about general atmosphere and risk. It's not about "ooh i have a full zerg now i want to go do some open-world PvP". Being able to chose depending on your mood, the odds, the oppenent wheter to go in PvE or PvP mode is just complete crap. If you do something alike only consensual, organized PvP would occur. You'd better just remove PvP ruleset all together then.

If that ever happens it would definetly be the time for me to hang up my axe above the fire place.

No, it isn't. With proper cooldown it is a boost for consensual pvp (this does not mean hugging or dueling or minis only...what you organize for example would count as consensual, too!).

The argument is not completely invalid though. So, a consequence system, where the fun and risk would not be inbalanced and onesided as they are now, would be far better. If you had such, you could set the cooldown not to 5mins, but 30 minutes.

Seriously...problem many gankers do not seem to get is, that you really can NOT force players to pvp, if they are not in the mood. If you annoy them, they might get farmed or griefed once, but leave or do something else, if they can not learn or grow by it. Only a small minority will get motivated by such. Not everyone is stubborn and out for revenge...and do you really want a server full of such people?

So for pvp population they are lost, because now they have to change server to avoid it. When in the mood for pvp they will do minis, but not open pvp. The OPs suggestion will take care of that and add a positive impact and more options to the population total available for pvp.

Of course you can rightfully add, why should someone choose pvp option then? What hinders them to gear up and play pve in peace?

Well, what is the difference to instanced pve grind you have now? What will be so bad, if the victim has a say in when or where it can be victimized and choose the risk? And i am sure, you will be surprised how many people will enjoy and sign that "thrill" you mentioned...if THEY can influence it depending on mood etc..

Of course there will be less drama and less chance to form bottlenecks and domination pvp, but is this really such a big loss in return for higher population available for pvp???

[Derled]

Nothing to do with open pvp, at last fury will be merge into crom so =)

and then rest of actuall pvp players quit and they lose money, wont happen

[Argantes]

and then rest of actuall pvp players quit and they lose money, wont happen

you mean money of those few HC PvPers that actually pay for the game? because you know, you get access to the whole AoC PvP content as a f2p already (including sieges) and with the buff to PvP weapons and armor, they won´t have to sub for the ultimate T4 stuff anymore..

[Chaman-bourru]

Consensual PvP, sure why not i'm not spitting on that, i enjoy it. But it takes organization. And when you fail for various reasons you get a lot of hate, complaints and such. That's why there aren't that many organizing anything.

Spontaneous open-world PvP on the other hand is diffrent. No organisation needed, just need a spark and people online to feed the fire.

Ganking IS NOT an issue. The maps are wide enough and varied enough to hardly ever experrience problematic ganking (more than once now and then with someone stopping you from doing anything). And after all that's what damn guild are about. But of course now they host only individualistic peeps that don't give a hand to guildies outside of a raid instance.

I am so fed up with people perpetuating the myth of ganking when it hasn't been an issue for years except for touchy solo players that would rather burn than join a guild and ask for help. And too stubborn to adapt.

Having watertight PvP / PvE boundries leaves less room for spontaneity and prevents guild combat of taking proper scale with too easy ways out. You're on a PvP server for a reason. If the scarce open-world pvp you encounter if you're not into that is a problem for you, indeed what the hell are you doing on this server ?

What's the diffrence with what happens now ? If a guy is farming beguliar blood in the zone i want to do so, i won't be able to get him out of my way... and he won't be able to bring friends to kick me out. If i'm just randomly questing, i won't be able to be attacked because i decided before i entered that i entered for PvE. I won't be able to track down foes and gank them for vendettas. If i get ganked by higher odds and can't get more people in 2minuts i'll just stop trying and switch to PvE mode. Oh i'm on a PvP 1 blue geared char, lets not risk uphill battles in PvP mode. Etc.

I'm not expecting people that haven't spent countless hours in open-world squirmish to understand where all the fun in that is. But leave open-world ruleset as it is at the moment so old farts like me can keep enjoying leveling alts in khitai and roam around.

[Kurt2013]

It has always been an issue. Not only in AoC. Denying it, will only hurt your own population. This is the natural flow of a "free for all" system that favors the strong inbalanced.

It only works as long as there are enough people to guild, group up or bother to help. If neither system nor population changes, it will be like a small club of likeminded people stagnating and slowly disappearing or dominated by a chosen few. If such an environment suits you, fine, but i doubt it is the majority.

Also what the OP suggested are not watertight boundaries. You can also see it as expanded options without having to merge fury with crom. If the option is "ambush favored and big guild zergs" or "same minis over and over on crom" then don't be surprised, if both do not lead to more pvp population, because imo the amount of people these options are fun to is not high. I am sure there is some middle ground...and letting players choose within a solid consequence system sounds best. Nothing should be disabled...but everything should have a consequence and risk involved.

And if the maps are so big and pvp avoidable already...then why do you find pvp only at bottlenecks, near guards or entrances nowadays? Gankers choose this for a reason...

What is so bad in letting players decide? You describe the different rulesets, yes. But each has pros and cons. This does not make the suggestion bad. If you don't want someone to farm beguiler blood, then there are ways in both rulesets to stop or annoy him. Equally he/she can avoid you doing it...it is just different, but not ruling each other out. And what is better or not, is highly subjective AND dependant on mood...and isn't that exactly the point of the suggestion?

And trust me, i have spent hours in open world skirmish and know that it can be fun. But this also means i do not close my eyes to the drawbacks and the effects of such a system and that it could not be improved. And i can imagine it not being fun for everyone and would like more people participating in pvp...because this means more variety and fun, too. And surely you agree, that a more complex pvp situation with more than 2 solo players (like solo players, groups, guilds and zergs all around) is preferable?