PVP incentives proposal

Let's talk about... everything else
User avatar
Shaeamus
Posts: 32

PVP incentives proposal

Post#1 » Thu May 07, 2020 5:47 pm

I wonder if a slightly different approach to PVP gear would liven up the lakes and make city pushes more of a realm effort/benefit v. individual/group thing. I'm a long term DAOC player and although relics wouldn't be easy to implement, you could simulate the concept.

The proposal:

Currency drops from players and bags for all zones, forts - progressing up to Royals if Invader unlocked. For player drops 70s drop invader, 80s drop Royals. Forts give 1 royal for defense or take if Invader unlocked. Zone bags give 1 invader/royal for purple, 2 for gold. Fort bags maybe 2 for purple, 3 for gold. City bags would stll have similar currency approach.

Successful fort take gives the realm 1 percent bonus to damage/heal for 24 hours, along with 3 percent bonus to renown/xp for 24 hours. These can stack up to 3x.
Successful city gives 3 percent bonus to damage/heal for 24 hours, along with 5 percent bonus to renown/xp. If city taken, locked for 24 hours.
Just brainstormin. Flame away.

Ads
User avatar
toffikx
Posts: 281
Contact:

Re: PVP incentives proposal

Post#2 » Thu May 07, 2020 5:55 pm

Realmwide bonuses to % dmg/heal could have unintended consequences, in a game that has always been riddled with balance issues.

The currency proposal is nice though.

Starx
Posts: 336

Re: PVP incentives proposal

Post#3 » Thu May 07, 2020 5:58 pm

I kinda wanted to say something about this, incentives are huge and I think play a larger role than anyone might think at first.

I've been following the campaign religiously for 2 months now, I even made a channel dedicated to it in our discord letting people know when forts etc... are about to happen even using the new website that tracks SOR offline. I've been in tune to this **** like a native american shaman and nature lol.

That being said the patch that introduced 4 invaders for defending the end zones absolutely wrecked havoc on the balance of things that were for the most part stable for months. Just one small change that was even hotfixed pretty fast and even swung in the other direction after, had such a drastic change on the state of the game that even after now its still felt.

Less people are trying, cities take literally 3x longer to happen and that really puts people in a bad mood bc now if you miss city because it happened at 3am you might not get a city all week instead of just missing it for that day, and that has a compounding effect.

Gear progression is whether people want to admit it or not probably the biggest driving factor to get people playing this game. You only have to look at the massive population spikes when a fort or city is about to happen. You know last city I did there was like 300 ppl in the lakes tops before the last fort, city opens and now theres 1200 ppl online inside city instances...

Gear progression doesn't have to be fast or easy mode, but when people can only progress their character when specific content is open and it might not be open for 8+ hours at a time they lose the will to play. 1-2 medals in gold/purple bags isn't gonna get people off their ass either.

There needs to be a total reimagining of the incentive/reward structure of this game otherwise everyone's just gonna turn into a jaded citylogger like many have at this point.

User avatar
Shaeamus
Posts: 32

Re: PVP incentives proposal

Post#4 » Thu May 07, 2020 6:03 pm

The damage/heal bonuses were a great layer of realm incentive in DAOC. They were not game breaking. Amounts are debatable.

emiliorv
Suspended
Posts: 1295

Re: PVP incentives proposal

Post#5 » Thu May 07, 2020 6:56 pm

Shaeamus wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 6:03 pm The damage/heal bonuses were a great layer of realm incentive in DAOC. They were not game breaking. Amounts are debatable.
Relic bonuses at "vanilla" DAOC were gamebreaking for sure (im talking about OF bonuses).

On topic:
1º-realm bonuses make the stronger faction a bit more stronger => i really dont think this is a good point.
2º-realm bonuses is a prize for the realm effort in rvr campaign...but everyone can log into the winner faction and benefit from the bonus....so whats the point to get a bonus that you didnt work to get?

User avatar
Shaeamus
Posts: 32

Re: PVP incentives proposal

Post#6 » Thu May 07, 2020 6:59 pm

fair point - maybe longer lockout/xrealm timers?

Starx
Posts: 336

Re: PVP incentives proposal

Post#7 » Thu May 07, 2020 10:04 pm

Shaeamus wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 6:59 pm fair point - maybe longer lockout/xrealm timers?
Xrealming is a meme and it always has been.

Please do tell me what you get for xrealming to the winning faction. Does it increase your chance of winning your cityinstance ? Do fort sieges fail or succeed most of the time? Do you get more bags for taking a zone? Do you have AAO on the zerg faction?

It's just a giant **** meme the xrealm timer should be abolished. Anyone that xrealms to the side thats winning just to """"""win""""" is braindead.

emiliorv
Suspended
Posts: 1295

Re: PVP incentives proposal

Post#8 » Fri May 08, 2020 9:33 am

Spoiler:
Starx wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 10:04 pm
Shaeamus wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 6:59 pm fair point - maybe longer lockout/xrealm timers?
Xrealming is a meme and it always has been.

Please do tell me what you get for xrealming to the winning faction. Does it increase your chance of winning your cityinstance ? Do fort sieges fail or succeed most of the time? Do you get more bags for taking a zone? Do you have AAO on the zerg faction?

It's just a giant **** meme the xrealm timer should be abolished. Anyone that xrealms to the side thats winning just to """"""win""""" is braindead.
Was you playing after the patch when x4 invader for last zone defense was introduced??

Ads
User avatar
Shaeamus
Posts: 32

Re: PVP incentives proposal

Post#9 » Fri May 08, 2020 5:50 pm

Yeah I was. It produced bad incentives. I think my proposal promotes activity everywhere. That was the goal anyway.

User avatar
Shaeamus
Posts: 32

Re: PVP incentives proposal

Post#10 » Fri May 08, 2020 5:51 pm

Yeah I was. It produced bad incentives. I think my proposal promotes activity everywhere. That was the goal anyway.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Grimir, Hazmy, Ysaran and 71 guests