Author Message

Rekikyo

Rank 5.1
Rekikyo
Joined
25 Nov 2008
Posts
8385
Location
Gaia Adrion Necria United States
PostedJan 29, 2013 5:58 am
Red:

Likewise; Atm this game is just as saturated with players who came here expecting pvp, if not more so, than players who expect PVE. We haven't seen that fallout that happens when a game in its maturity turns one of those aspects off.

At this time, I can assure you if nothing changes, far more players will leave the game than those who you feel would react adversely to having pvp for 3 hours.

A Game MUST have balance between pvp and pve. Atm there is no such balance. PVE is winning over vastly.

Blue: You're missing the point because of some tangent feeling that using the word Utilitarianism derives a subsequent loss of choice or representation by players/customers/citizens.

This has nothing at all to do with Economics. My point does.
No service (this game is a service) has Perfect Demand Elasticity. Any change will have a positive gain for someone, and a negative gain for someone else. They key is making satisfying customers utility = profit making utility of a producer (called Market Equilibrium).

As far as substitution: This is a fact, not a theory. While a change in pvp would result in a demand curve shift, Players who still play would be choosing between pvp and pve like a substitute good. In other words, they will not choose 1.5 hours of pvp versus 1 hour of pve. They will either spend .5 hours pvping and .5 hours pveing, or they will spend 1 hour doing both (a Slope of -1).

It is very difficult to measure as a player whether the change would result in a positive, or a negative shift in demand though. Some players would treat is as you do: a loss of choice, bringing the demand curve inward. Others though, would see it as a positive change, and perhaps even advertise the game to their friends (for example Shaiya players who love pvp), bringing demand outward (growth).

@ the Paragraph on channels/region specific; Time is simply another way to segregrate options. 21 hours to please the pve-loving minority in exchange for 3 hours of enjoyment for pvpers. Channels thin out pvp, and create displeasure overall for pvpers. They also restrict pve, as friend networks are thinner. Restricted areas only work if that area has a resource or a pvp advantage that players want. Restricting Time AND Region, is the most extreme manner in which you can regulate pvp, and that will offend far more players who like pvp. This is being advertised as a PVP game. It has PVP implementation. So why does it have the strictest form of pvp regulation?

@Purple: I already have a Epic 30 weapon and can easily farm a 40 weapon. That is what the Dailies are for. And they will run out of usefulness. For each player, the length will vary, but for adamant players it will be mere months.

The statement claiming, "I am not the only one who feels this way," once again is a two edged sword with damage that is hard to quantify. Do more players feel like you? Or do more players feel like the pvp here sucks, and that the game will suffer because of it?

If anything, my suggestion offers MORE (not less) play styles than your attack against it. Castle Siege is Voluntary, for example. Adding global pvp would simply deviate one function, into two functions. So, we would have 20.3 hours of pure PVE, .6 hours of "Choice to participate," and 3 hours of Mandatory pvp.

Why have factions on a game, if the factions play no role? We are supposed to fight. Not choose not to (a choice that kills games).

Advertisement

gmebilfish

GameMaster: USA
gmebilfish
Joined
26 Apr 2011
Posts
1443
Location
Lost City of Altantis United States
PostedJan 29, 2013 8:20 pm
Thank you for the awesome constructive feedback everyone. The PM are very much aware of this and will be working with the Devs concerning the issue with PvP and Ruemon.

It's still early but there definitely more contents and battles the Developer have in plan for you.

staticfreak

Rank 2
staticfreak
Joined
08 Jun 2009
Posts
619
Location
Canada
PostedJan 31, 2013 8:59 am
My idea is a larger gift of sometype for people that chose to go from the dominating faction to the underdog faction. 3mil gold, or 100 emlant VC something substantial for switching to the underdog. Ofc would need to be limited # of people per day or week to avoid shifting the balance to far to 1 side and then no gift when things are some what even.
In war its not uncommon for factions to seek out recruits by offering attractive awards.

THIS is MY axe THEIR are MANY like IT but THIS 1 IS mine.

filipvarga

GameSage: DK Online
filipvarga
Joined
06 Dec 2008
Posts
2564
Location
Porec Croatia
PostedJan 31, 2013 9:08 am
gmebilfish wrote:
Thank you for the awesome constructive feedback everyone. The PM are very much aware of this and will be working with the Devs concerning the issue with PvP and Ruemon.

It's still early but there definitely more contents and battles the Developer have in plan for you.  

I was told my one of the RPG Factory PR Managers that new PvP Systems and more PvP content is coming in the future, aswell as Open World PvP in certain areas, so its just a matter of time. People have to be patient, farm their stuff, get linked/enhanced and await the new PvP Systems.

Inushokin

Rank 0
Joined
23 Jan 2013
Posts
8
Location
Grove City, Ohio United States
PostedJan 31, 2013 6:09 pm
gmebilfish wrote:
What do you guys think that will help Eos participate in RvR?

Beside FPS lag. We already aware of that and informed the Devs.  


How about making that particular area instanced during RvR times? Say, 20 vs 20? It'd reduce lag per instance, and it'd be fair number-wise. Then, when the RvR time is concluded, add the wins/losses automatically via some system (leave that to you guys...) and whoever had the most instance wins, well, wins?

It seems complex, sure, but it'd solve a ton of problems easily. It may be worth looking into at some point in the future.

000Ace000

Rank 0
000Ace000
Joined
17 Nov 2012
Posts
74
Location
R. Germany
PostedJan 31, 2013 6:22 pm
Inushokin wrote:
gmebilfish wrote:
What do you guys think that will help Eos participate in RvR?

Beside FPS lag. We already aware of that and informed the Devs.  


How about making that particular area instanced during RvR times? Say, 20 vs 20? It'd reduce lag per instance, and it'd be fair number-wise. Then, when the RvR time is concluded, add the wins/losses automatically via some system (leave that to you guys...) and whoever had the most instance wins, well, wins?

It seems complex, sure, but it'd solve a ton of problems easily. It may be worth looking into at some point in the future.  


The problem here is, if the 20 vs 20 is filled up (which would be around the nummeber of Eos participating right now) what should the rest of diones do? hanging around in empty instances, or just not be able to participate at all? I dont think that most of the diones who wants to pvp should be punished for the lack of eos players ...

caprontos

Rank 1
caprontos
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
246
Location
United States
PostedJan 31, 2013 7:09 pm
gmebilfish wrote:
What do you guys think that will help Eos participate in RvR?

Beside FPS lag. We already aware of that and informed the Devs.  


I posted this elsewhere but it suits your question..

So some ideas how to try to improve RVR so more people join and make it a generally more fun time:

 
RVR buff should be given only to those who participate in rvr - and no one else. Win or lose.

The winning team should receive a better version but everyone who comes should get a buff. I think losing team who participated should receive at lest 50% of the current buff. A tie should result in all getting the smaller.

Or tell us what the buff is and the players can tell you what might be nicer.

This would at lest get more people to show up early... Then with pure's idea of shorter rvr but more often it might be enough to keep the thing interesting.

Lower the glory loss penalty on death some so losing teams can actually gain rank.. and make every kill give glory. Also lower ranked players should gain more glory for killing higher ranks so it is easier to catch up if behind but harder to push ahead if to ahead..

Remove glory loss from outside rvr deaths. or give glory ranks a purpose outside for fun.

Remove the borderline aoe glitch

Make it so if I log in during rvr inside Reumon I am teleported to my teams town.

Add a glory bonus for taking the center (players in it when it hits your teams side gain the glory) - or for taking it from the other team to make camping the middle make sense.

Alternatively make it so the bar in the middle is much harder to raise to fully one way and if no one is in the center it will slowly return to neutral. So a team must camp the middle to hold the middle.

We cap the center in less then a few mins currently.. that's kinda meh..

It should be easier to make it go to neutral then it is to make it go full your side though of course.. So one side can't simply get it so far in there side its impossible to at lest make it a tie.

Possibly make evene bridge give eos team a buff to all stats (like 10% boost) and the halland bridge give to Dione. (The other two would be neutral for now but you could make each one eos/Dione once the jungle is open)

This makes it harder to camp a teams bridge because people in it will be stronger then they are in the center (since part of what we want is people to camp the middle.. and not the edges).

Remove the 2 guards at the edge of the jungle bridge and put a wall for now. These guards are used to lure/troll people and serve no purpose other then this..

Make it so you can move an entire guild to a different realm.. price could be dependent on how many people you have.  



They may not be the best ideas but just throwing some ideas out there.

Inushokin

Rank 0
Joined
23 Jan 2013
Posts
8
Location
Grove City, Ohio United States
PostedJan 31, 2013 8:06 pm
000Ace000 wrote:
Inushokin wrote:
gmebilfish wrote:
What do you guys think that will help Eos participate in RvR?

Beside FPS lag. We already aware of that and informed the Devs.  


How about making that particular area instanced during RvR times? Say, 20 vs 20? It'd reduce lag per instance, and it'd be fair number-wise. Then, when the RvR time is concluded, add the wins/losses automatically via some system (leave that to you guys...) and whoever had the most instance wins, well, wins?

It seems complex, sure, but it'd solve a ton of problems easily. It may be worth looking into at some point in the future.  


The problem here is, if the 20 vs 20 is filled up (which would be around the nummeber of Eos participating right now) what should the rest of diones do? hanging around in empty instances, or just not be able to participate at all? I dont think that most of the diones who wants to pvp should be punished for the lack of eos players ...  


Nono, there would be multiple instances of it. Not just one. Smile The only problem I can see is if the last filled instance had 20 Dione and 15 Eos. But even then, if the other 10 instances were 20vs20, one instance of 20vs15 is certainly far better than Dione camping the ramp for an hour, no?

Giovanna_X

GameSage: DK Online
Giovanna_X
Joined
23 Mar 2008
Posts
3609
Location
Carpe Noctem! United States
PostedFeb 01, 2013 2:46 am
Inushokin wrote:
000Ace000 wrote:
Inushokin wrote:
gmebilfish wrote:
What do you guys think that will help Eos participate in RvR?

Beside FPS lag. We already aware of that and informed the Devs.  


How about making that particular area instanced during RvR times? Say, 20 vs 20? It'd reduce lag per instance, and it'd be fair number-wise. Then, when the RvR time is concluded, add the wins/losses automatically via some system (leave that to you guys...) and whoever had the most instance wins, well, wins?

It seems complex, sure, but it'd solve a ton of problems easily. It may be worth looking into at some point in the future.  


The problem here is, if the 20 vs 20 is filled up (which would be around the nummeber of Eos participating right now) what should the rest of diones do? hanging around in empty instances, or just not be able to participate at all? I dont think that most of the diones who wants to pvp should be punished for the lack of eos players ...  


Nono, there would be multiple instances of it. Not just one. Smile The only problem I can see is if the last filled instance had 20 Dione and 15 Eos. But even then, if the other 10 instances were 20vs20, one instance of 20vs15 is certainly far better than Dione camping the ramp for an hour, no?  


No, Ace has a point.

The point is that at the moment, 20 is about the total number of Eos players showing up (give or take a few), and so when those 20 and 20 random Dione players were in an instance, there would not be anything for the rest of the Dione players. The issue is attendance, not instancing, not FPS. Let's be optimistic and say that 40 Eos people show up. 100 Dione people also show up. If it's reduced to instances, a total of 80 people will get to participate, and 60 will be standing around doing nothing. This will discourage attendance, rather than encouraging it.

Eniskuo

Rank 1
Eniskuo
Joined
04 Jun 2009
Posts
259
Location
VandownbytheRiver United States
PostedFeb 01, 2013 6:56 am
with the all the feed back to my initial statement there is one thing that has not changed, most ALL these ideas have been spoken of already after CB and ST pvp discussions. The ideas are out there, we just need some of them to be decided on by aeria and the devs and put into place.

Display posts from previous:   Sort by: