How about implementing xp gain and loss in PvP

[____________Valerian]

I was thinking that one way to make PvP more viable is making it more rewarding and riskier. It would work like that:

An xp transfer between the opponents. The winner(s) get the xp that the fallen loose. The level of the 2 or more fighters facing each other determins the amount of xp "exchanged" in such a fight. And it would be possible to loose levels of course. Fighting in groups would mean less loss or gain for the members.
Tell me what you think?

Val

[Paffy]

Funcom has said that you will never gain EXP for killing other players or any other significant benefits. Giving EXP of benefits would increase the amount of grief players.

Dont see this happening.

Zarch and bunch of other chars between 3 and 119

PS. I DO hope that best exp areas etc would be in political zones though so that if you wanted, you would have a chance of getting great exp with risk, or mediocore exp in safe zones.

[______________Yazule]

one word

griefers

problem is the best way to level would then be to kill other players about to ding.

[____________Valerian]

PS. I DO hope that best exp areas etc would be in political zones though so that if you wanted, you would have a chance of getting great exp with risk, or mediocore exp in safe zones.

Thats actually something I dont want to see, cause it gives griefers opportunities. I dont PvP myself and dont want to be jumped by insanely overequipped twinks when I want to get a level at higher levels.

one word
griefers

problem is the best way to level would then be to kill other players about to ding.

About to ding? The xp you can gain or loose is determined by your level and that of your opponent (if you die and havent scanned you loose all of the uninsured xp too, but the other just gets the amount that was determined by the server based on the two levels). For example:

A level 20 and a level 30 fight and the system determines that the winner will win 700xp from the loser based on their levels and the level range between them. No matter if they scanned or not or if they just made a level or not. Of course if one was so stupid to go into a PvP fight without scanning he will loose that xp as usual.

For the level 30 its not so interesting to fight a lower level cause he wont get alot of xp (if he kills someone his level he could get - lets say - 1100xp ). Lower risk equals lower reward.
The level 20 on the other hand can get his hands on alot of xp for his level if he can beat the higherlevel but the loss of the same amount would also hurt him more.
The fact that you win the same amount that the other looses makes it harder for griefers to level using a friend killing each other.

Val

[______________Yazule]

It really does not matter if you put a scalar on exp given based on level.

I am level 117 with 3 MILLION exp to lose,

That 150 comes along and kills me and get

1MILLION exp.

That is more exp than you can get from any mob in the game, even if it is 1/3

Would be even more exp than a mob would get at 1/6.

I DO think that you should get an exp or loot bonus for hunting in a mayhem zone, that would mean you get more reward for more risk. How does it encourage griefers? The pvp guy gets nothing extra out of the deal, and the bonus makes up for the times you got killed in a mayhem zone.


If you dont pvp then I assume you dont go to mayhem zones because you dont want to pvp. Am I right in that?

What level are you? You use levels 20 and 30 for examples. You never see a 20 in a mayhem zone, 90% of the time you dont see them in a 25% zone unelss they are there to pvp. Missions and hunting in mayhem/25% zones are for upper level characters, not lowbies just based on the mob difficulty.

One more question, if you dont pvp then why are you talking about getting exp for pvping? *shrugs* Dont seem to make any sense to me.

[____________Valerian]

It really does not matter if you put a scalar on exp given based on level.

I am level 117 with 3 MILLION exp to lose,

That 150 comes along and kills me and get

1MILLION exp.

True, there would have to be a PvP level range even after 75. Never understood why they did that. Looks like a very bad idea. How big is the chance to beat someone 40 levels ahead of you even when the differences between levels are less significant at higher levels?
What do you mean by "3 Million xp to lose"? You mean the total xp at level 117? Thats of no importance at all.

I DO think that you should get an exp or loot bonus for hunting in a mayhem zone, that would mean you get more reward for more risk. How does it encourage griefers? The pvp guy gets nothing extra out of the deal, and the bonus makes up for the times you got killed in a mayhem zone.

Keep in mind that a majority of players dont PvP and would go there for that bonus and prolly get angry at being killed by kids with too much "z" in their names over and over. They would come here and protest against griefers and FC would have to change PvP YET AGAIN, investing even more time and money as they already did into a part of the game that alot of players are not really interested in.

If you dont pvp then I assume you dont go to mayhem zones because you dont want to pvp. Am I right in that?

Take a look at my sig. Yep I'm neutral.

What level are you?

My highest chara is 46 at the moment.

One more question, if you dont pvp then why are you talking about getting exp for pvping? *shrugs* Dont seem to make any sense to me.

It was just an idea to make PvP more viable. Getting more ppl interested in it by offering the possibilty to actually gain xp from it. Most of the ideas and concepts I see here from PvP players go into the direction of either "forcing" ppl into PvP by making more zones 25% or mayhem or then turning Rubi-Ka into some sort of huge Team Fortress Capture-the-flag map. These ideas are IMO not suited for an RPG game.

This is the forum to talk about these things. Makes sense to me to post here.

Val

[________________Sent]

Originally posted by Valerian
I was thinking that one way to make PvP more viable is making it more rewarding and riskier. It would work like that:

An xp transfer between the opponents. The winner(s) get the xp that the fallen loose. The level of the 2 or more fighters facing each other determins the amount of xp "exchanged" in such a fight. And it would be possible to loose levels of course. Fighting in groups would mean less loss or gain for the members.
Tell me what you think?

Val

How many people do you see in PvP zones with XP to lose? I'm guessing it's 0.001% of the AO population. This is because it takes very little skill to kill someone exping and people don't want to lose hours of XPing to griefers.

If nothing else, remove the XP on PvP death penalty, even if you didn't scan, to encourage people to hit PvP zones.

[____________Valerian]

How many people do you see in PvP zones with XP to lose? I'm guessing it's 0.001% of the AO population. This is because it takes very little skill to kill someone exping and people don't want to lose hours of XPing to griefers.

Read thru the thread again Dr. Sent. My idea is that you lose xp in a PvP fight no matter if insured or not. If you have scanned you will lose a certain amount of your xp to your foe and thats it. If you havent then the winner will still win the same amount of xp from you (no gain in killing xping players) but you will lose all uninsured xp like with any death.
Example:

You're level 40 and have 50k unscanned xp and run around in a PvP zone and get killed by a level 42. You lose the 50k, he gets 1400xp (about the xp of an even con at level 41).

If the same happens with scan, you lose the 1500xp despite the fact you scanned.

The scanner doesnt matter and you will be able to lose your level from a PvP death, else you'd get an unfair advantage at the beginning of a level.

Val

[________________Sent]

I understand your post perfectly and personally I would go for it, unfortunately people will raise holy hell if they lose XP in PvP. If you don't believe me check out the DAoC boards.

It's also important to know your audience.
http://forums.anarchy-online.com/pol...ults&pollid=13

PvP isn't even close to what the AO base enjoys the most. You add XP loss to that and you'll have even less people in PvP conflicts.

[______________Yazule]

That poll is quite inaccurate.

Peoples favorite thing isnt pvp because it has so many issues.

what percentage of people's favorite thing is team missions

0%

Does that imply there is no interest?

Not letting us post replys on polls makes them all but useless as we dont know why people vote the way they do.

That poll is "what do you do most in AO"

that is about it.

[____________Valerian]

I understand your post perfectly and personally I would go for it, unfortunately people will raise holy hell if they lose XP in PvP. If you don't believe me check out the DAoC boards.

The problem with PvP is that its outside the actual game system. Despite ppl repeating this over and over on these boards AO is not a PvP game. Look at the level/xp system and missions. Killing things, making money, buying better stuff and by this getting stronger is how this game works. PvP is apart from these mechanics. Its just an option with no consequences. By making you gain and lose xp it would be a real part of the game. It shouldnt be possible to level faster doing PvP than with missions or hunting but it should give you something.

Perhaps the possible loss of xp would turn some ppl away, I dont know. If PvP players are really as badass as they normally act like, than they should welcome such a change. Doodz who just want to be uber and kill (read: dominate) others without risk will hopefully be turned away.

It's also important to know your audience.

Yea, I know the poll, but polls in general are tricky business. There sure is only a minority doing PvP in game but still Funcom is investing loads of time into changing PvP rules and mechanics every other patch (instead of fixing missions or pistols ). So it is important to them (or are they just listening too much to whiners?). PvP is a can of worms and its far from really working. Overequipping insanity has to go, classes have to be balanced more and interesting career opportunities have to be introduced IMO.

Val