The Conflict

Please excuse me if this idea has been presented before.

I am writing this letter because of several problems that I have noticed during my one and one half months stay in the world of Anarchy Online. As my character has gotten stronger and progressed in levels I've come into contact with many people of the same level or higher who feel that they have reached a brick wall in what the can do within the game. The way that missions are set up, and they way in which characters are able to interact within their environment doesn't seem to allow characters to have much impact in the direction of the game. What is going to happen, happens, and the participants of the game get to, essentially, sit back and watch, take a backseat role in the game they are investing countless hours in. The conflict between Omnitek and the Clans needs to be accentuated more. The creation of the amnesties, and the Clans' acceptance of them, seems to suggest that Funcom may be moving towards eliminating the conflict that is so central to this game. I have not heard many players that are in favor of this. My suggestion is as follows. Take the areas directly surrounding the cities and divide them up into zones. These zones would be political areas, and open to attack and possible take-over by opposing forces. The format of the zones could be set up in layers, so that if one layer fell, the next in line would be open to attack. Then distribute these zones to the different clans and guilds. This could be done with the zones that are the most important or at risk of attack being given to the more powerful guilds and the areas of minor importance given to less powerful guilds. Another way to do this would be to sell the zones, so that only guilds with money, therefore power, could access the important zones. Once all these zones had fell, the city or base they were surrounding would fall into enemy hands.

What I see this accomplishing:
This would create a greater interest in the events of the world of Anarchy Online. Players would be more affected, and have a greater abilty to affect, the world around them, therefore they would have a greater interest and stake in the game. Guilds would become much more important, and being the leader of a guild would be something to strive for. Also the zones, and the clans who control them, could be made into smaller, more personal markets, in which a person might be able to pay to initiate a search for an item instead of having to chance upon it. Pacifist guilds could still exist, and have a stake in the game, because their goal could be to convert hostile zones into pacifist zones, and to use politics and debate to convince people to change their ways. They could also use economic power to simply take control of hostile zones. Either way, they would still be able to take part in this new format, and they would be challenged by it and hopefully piqued by the challenge of taking the alternate route.

I know my ideas would require some difficult, perhaps impossible, changes to Anarchy Online, but I see them, or some radical change, imperitive to preventing the world of Rubi-ka from becoming stagnant.

Thanks for your time.

the bigger problem now is that most of the people don't care about PvP (i've read only 10% play the PvP way) : the main reason being the PvP system sucks (everybody agree to say it is just about an over-equipment challenge)

your post is a good idea about bringing some more RP into that conflict : each zone (or key point as OutPost) should have a statut which can change every week/month regarding PvP issues and involment of the players.

it could be a flag contest : imagine a flag in each OP, then each time someone touch the flag, it add one point (which can be multiplied by his level or title?) to his camp. At the end of the period (a week, a month, ...) the camp who has won take control of the OP (scan,shop,bank).

FC should be able to include it in his main story by selecting which OP become open to change. Then each camp will have to motivate their troups (u can know in RealTime the statu), for instance u can heard on channel "voice of freedom" warning msg when OT take the lead or congrat msg when it is clan turn. U may have to stop hunt/mission (stop personal lvl up) to joign the fight


my 2cents
clear in my mind, not sure this post is as clear...

Amen,

I hear people saying "forget pvp fixes, pvpers are few".

Well, Nobody 0% of the people do team missions because they are broken, so we should not worry about team missions at all?

Every time I hear "nobody pvp's" arguments I think to myself "less people role play than pvp, is roleplaying broken?"

PVP is hosed. It is MUCH better than it was, but still major issues with classes yoyoing from gods to gimps and back again with every patch.


If you add some ability to say take over an area (even if for a short time) with winning a pvp battle you will have a lot more people interested in it!

this is the point, because PvP in itself is not really fun, we have to find a motivation

I know i will feel more concerned and ready to do some PvP if it can help the cause of my camp and if i see a result in the global story, whatever the PvP system good or not, whatever if my prof is unbalanced and weak, whatever if my opponents over-twink.

Just gime a reason to fight !!

and lets change all 'political' zones into mayhem ... after all its a pvp/no-pvp question .... and i still think that whole 'neutrals can't initiate combat'-thingy is rather silly ...

yeah, either a zone is safe or it's not ..

just make some save terminals near those zones .. pvp is only fun if you don't loose anythin ... not even too much time ,)