Open world PvP Zone

My server and guild is constantly using the dueling arena... many of my players don’t do larger PVP runs. They just like the 1 vs1 duels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uvuvwevwevweonyetenyevweugwemu

Snip.

---

Getting into semantics now. sure technically hopscotch can be considered a PvP situation but we're not talking about anything PvP, we're talking about killing your opponent's character with skills. Look at how many PvP only games released have a campaign or a PvE type setting, oh wait there aren't any because PvP shouldn't be mixed with PvE, not only do they have to balance skills for one side but then have to balance it for the other side without hindering the main side which is of course PvE, I don't know how well this is done as I don't PvP in MMO's anymore.

These days it's just people trying to abuse the system or cheat or min max things so they can bully another player. I don't care if honestly gets implemented or not, i'm just here debating for the sake of conversation, it's not like my opinion or any one person's opinion is going to matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shouko

Getting into semantics now. sure technically hopscotch can be considered a PvP situation but we're not talking about anything PvP, we're talking about killing your opponent's character with skills. Look at how many PvP only games released have a campaign or a PvE type setting, oh wait there aren't any because PvP shouldn't be mixed with PvE, not only do they have to balance skills for one side but then have to balance it for the other side without hindering the main side which is of course PvE, I don't know how well this is done as I don't PvP in MMO's anymore.

These days it's just people trying to abuse the system or cheat or min max things so they can bully another player. I don't care if honestly gets implemented or not, i'm just here debating for the sake of conversation, it's not like my opinion or any one person's opinion is going to matter.

---

As far as PvP only games with PvE campaigns, you just described nearly every first person shooter ever. Often times, the campaign serves as a means to learn the controls without being thrust right into active multiplayer battles right away. And it goes without saying that some games are known for both having a well written campaign, and highly enjoyable multiplayer.

As for having to balance things for both sides, I can't stress enough that they'd hit a decent balance point by the end of Heavensward, especially in standardizing cc skills (which everyone had back then) to 6 seconds at the most, with diminishing returns for each application (6, then 4, then 2, then 1, then immunity for 60 sec.). Many of the "useless" skills from PvE were highly useful in PvP, and examples like Miasma having one of its effects removed or Unleash being a bind in PvP and not in PvE show that balancing both was entirely possible, and already was being done.

Lastly, as far as "bullying another player" goes, some people feel the need to do that. I don't. I get no satisfaction from it, nor does it make me feel like a better player. Now, if provoked or attacked, I'll meet that with full force and won't feel the least bit bothered by it. But I'm sure there are many players that don't feel the need to actively hunt or grief other players, and it's wrong to just assume all players who'd be interested in open world PvP just want to bully others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shouko

This game isn't set up for PvP was we've already established, so how long is one new zone appease you until you get bored of it and want something new yet again? The reason I say that you should go to a game designed around PvP for PvP is so you can do it to your hearts content, something like Overwatch is more akin to PvP like this game but oriented towards PvP in general. It has plenty of characters to choose from it's action packed, it's constantly updating maps and characters to add in for PvP.

I'm not going to throw a fit or rage if it does happen, i'm merely making conversation and asking why people want it so badly in a non PvP oriented game.

---

The thing is, that argument doesn't work. Plenty of people mention it in this thread. But I hate Overwatch. Not interested in it at all. I love this game. I want PvP in this game. Why can't you go and play some other PvE oriented game instead?

And of course we are going to want more after awhile. Maybe not a new zone, but a new mode or something. Am I not allowed to want that? Why are you allowed to want something more for PvE?

And this game is set up for PvP, we have it and there are people who enjoy it a lot. Just because it isn't as good in some peoples eye as PvP in other games, doesn't mean its not meant for this game or set up for it. Because if it was like you said, we wouldn't have PvP in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shirolumi

Why can't you go and play some other PvE oriented game instead?

---

I wanted to highlight this, as it's a great counter to all the people that say "If you want PvP go play another game that's meant for it."

Imagine for a moment if the devs thought that way, and frequently redirected people that want a feature in game that wasn't previously there. XIV's hosuing system isn't the greatest, but imagine if they said "If you want a good housing system, go play another game"? Imagine if they said that with glamours? We'd have a pretty dry game if not for the devs being open to what the players want.

And like it or not, there are enough of us in this "PvE-focused" game that also enjoy PvP. More than you might think. Key word: ALSO. To redirect those players also impacts PvE, while actually offering them content to appeal to their requests hardly impacts it.

PvP zone in this mom is just not feasible, game mechanic and lore isn't built around concept of World PVP (it is actually ganking). People plays for reward, if no reward, it would a just going to die out like the dueling. It is pointless. If you are requesting for FF11 ballista, I am for sure 100% support it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

PvP zone in this mom is just not feasible, game mechanic and lore isn't built around concept of World PVP (it is actually ganking). People plays for reward, if no reward, it would a just going to die out like the dueling. It is pointless. If you are requesting for FF11 ballista, I am for sure 100% support it

---

I have the ADS, the white ADS, all 3 GC horse mounts, all 3 Garo mounts, the Makai Master title, Hand of Mercy, Knight of Glory, and I STILL actively queue for PvP. I level my jobs via dungeons and roulettes like I always did, so I'm not even using PvP for that.

It IS possible to actually like and enjoy playing PvP in this game for the sake of enjoying PvP. And if people want a reward, they can offer rewards. . . for people that WANT to PvP. If anyone isn't interested in PvP, or wouldn't want to venture in, then the rewards simply aren't for them.

Want a lore reason? Here's one I came up with while typing:

PvP Zone: Crystalline Wastes (West Shroud)
Concept: Officially, the Grand Companies deemed an expedition into the West Shroud for any reason would be of no use, given the widespread devastation in the wake of the Sixth Calamity. But the adventurer's spirit and curiosity are as unyielding as Eorzea's will to recover from the Calamity, and the possibility of fight or fortune is hard to resist. Thus having discovered a way into the forsaken area, you now embark on a dangerous and lawless adventure, where any other adventurer can be friend or foe!

A little imagination and open-mindedness can go a long way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThirdChild_ZKI

I wanted to highlight this, as it's a great counter to all the people that say "If you want PvP go play another game that's meant for it."

---

Actually, while both arguments are heinous, one is more rooted.

I can rephrase this many times in as many ways, but it's becoming clear that there is blinders in play here. This isn't a "each opinion is weighted equally" kind of debate. You're fighting an uphill battle here. Open World PvP is a subset of the already minority community of avid PvP Players. And we've already multiple methods of satisfying multitude of other playstyles that aren't gank-related.

Fair group v group Pvp? We got Feast for that.
Large group objective play? Look at all these Frontlines!
And now we have a MOBA-alike coming.

The one mode that we got that was a lot like roaming and ganking? (Slaughter) It got removed.

So out of all the types of content we had, the one most like what you are requesting a massive expansion of is the only mode they flat out removed - can you see why I say the evidence is leaning one way over another?

It already seems that SE does not wish to encourage gameplay that is only about killing another player. Which, is sad, cause I did like Slaughter as a mode. But if we can't even get that mode back, do you really think open World PvP has a chance?

Screw the inflammatory arguments, please think of this logically.

Slaughter was basically Secure without the non-player objectives. Team Deathmatch, basically. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a rather basic competitive multiplayer mode? It wasn't large amounts of players finding and taking out unsuspecting players. You knew what you queued for, the objective was quite clear. Why it was removed, other than being such an underplayed mode (thanks to being left for dead at level 50 all through Heavensward) is something you'd have to ask SE. If we wanted it back enough, that is, if enough player demand wanted to see Slaughter return as a mode, it's entirely possible. I know the PvP community has a real bad case of defeat when it comes to SE hearing us on anything, but they DO listen. Freelancer and the Dueling circle wouldn't exist otherwise. Those weren't their ideas. They were ours.

Let it also be noted that the rules for Secure, Seize, and Shatter clearly note in the descriptions of how to score, "as well as defeating other players". If they didn't wish to encourage gameplay that's only about killing another player, that would be the complete antithesis of Player versus Player gameplay that involves combat.

That said, the common issue here is people assume - and I understand there's experience behind this - that players are simply going to hunt and gank unsuspecting players. So let me ask these few questions:

• If a PvP zone is clearly marked and defined, with a notification upon trying to enter: how would it be possible for someone uninterested in PvP to "accidentally" wind up there?
• If there is no required PvE content within said area, how would it be an issue for any player uninterested in PvP?
• If a player can toggle a status to signal they do/do not wish to PvP within the area, how is it an issue to be attacked if/when you don't wish to be?
• If there's every accomodation made to ensure that someone who does not wish to PvP at all is in no way affected by, or impacted by such an area existing, then where lies the issue in allowing such an area to be added?

These questions continue to be dodged, for the sake of the "but I don't want to get ganked!" narrative. If there's absolutely no possibility of that happening, even if you're in the area and have your "Don't touch me" status on, then what's the issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThirdChild_ZKI

These questions continue to be dodged, for the sake of the "but I don't want to get ganked!" narrative. If there's absolutely no possibility of that happening, even if you're in the area and have your "Don't touch me" status on, then what's the issue?

---

Thats not the only question at play but things are starting to run around in circles in this thread. I apologize if i'm inferring too much into peoples posts but I think the main point most of the non-PvP players are trying to make is that we don't want PvP in the PvE maps but we don't have a problem with PvP players getting a new mode for a more free form style of combat and it seems most of the PvP players in this thread are in agreement that a new mode for that is fine. Simply put, I don't think there is any way you can convince someone that doesn't like PvP that bringing PvP into a PvE map will be a good thing for them or PvE in general. And conversely you will always see it as a good thing because you like PvP.

Personally, I'd be more inclined to let this thread die and open a new thread about new PvP modes instead of trying to fight for open world PvP...there may just be too much baggage with that term and this thread title for you to have the discussion you want to have.

Open world pvp give, pve boring and toxic :cuterage:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alien_Gamer

Simply put, I don't think there is any way you can convince someone that doesn't like PvP that bringing PvP into a PvE map will be a good thing for them or PvE in general.

---

SE has done it before. That's what is sad. FFXI had exactly what people are asking for. Dueling Circle is not the same as PvP. Jobs were not designed to go 1v1. They are meant to co-exist with each other which is why each has varying roles and we as a PvP community would like something that isn't instanced.

We literally have dead zones. DEAD. There is no activity. I challenge anyone who is against an area/zone to go to the Isles of Umbra and count how many players they see in a week. I bet you more than 80% of the people who are against the idea haven't visited it in 2 years about when Pharos Sirius HM was released.

We already have PvP why can't we expand on it. Again I am tired of having an instanced zone which all feast and frontlines are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintersandman

SE has done it before. That's what is sad. FFXI had exactly what people are asking for. Dueling Circle is not the same as PvP. Jobs were not designed to go 1v1. They are meant to co-exist with each other which is why each has varying roles and we as a PvP community would like something that isn't instanced.

We literally have dead zones. DEAD. There is no activity. I challenge anyone who is against an area/zone to go to the Isles of Umbra and count how many players they see in a week. I bet you more than 80% of the people who are against the idea haven't visited it in 2 years about when Pharos Sirius HM was released.

We already have PvP why can't we expand on it. Again I am tired of having an instanced zone which all feast and frontlines are.

---

Edit: I made a mistake, sorry
Flags are cool.
I think I still suffer from Wow-PVP-sickness...It clouded my reaction. The horrors it was....Dark times

Edit 2: And I'm not completely against all PVP. I definitely like the idea of a PVP zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squintina

Just as long as there are no PVE quests in it.

I played another MMO on a PVE server, and it had "PVP zones". At first I didn't care, I would just skip those zones and let the PVPers have their fun with other PVPers....
Then a bunch of PVE quests (main and side quests) ended up in these PVP zones and jerks would come up and kill me while I was questing.

But if it's a zone that has literally only PVP content (and maybe A/Shunts since other players can still do A/S hunts in the regular maps, but no Hunting bill marks and these zones can't show up in treasure maps), and away from new player areas so new people can't accidentally walk into it while they're still learning the ins-and-outs of the game, then it doesn't seem like an unreasonable suggestion.

I would probably avoid it like the plague, but just because I don't want to enjoy it, doesn't mean others won't.

---

I just get a little scared of PVP in PVE zones, but I guess with a flag (that's off by default) it's fine, and as long as SE doesn't introduce bugs like being able to pvp someone else and an AOE attack can still attack a nearby PVE player.

Original post:
Whoa, hold up. It's one thing to ask for a new map in the global map that is purely for PVP (so you guys can do pvp without a queue), but leave the PVE zones alone.
It's not about whether existing players return, it's about when new players have to do story quests there and not have to be ganked. They may not come there often, but when they do, imagine how they'll feel being killed while doing a story quest. And while you may not go after low level people, others might, that's what happens in every MMO that has PVE zones with PVP in them.

PVP-only zone = good
PVE-zone with PVP = makes new people want to quit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squintina

Whoa, hold up. It's one thing to ask for a new map in the global map that is purely for PVP (so you guys can do pvp without a queue), but leave the PVE zones alone.
It's not about whether existing players return, it's about when new players have to do story quests there and not have to be ganked. T

---

You didn't read any other post. I already stated you would have to flag yourself, toggle something, or etc to be engaged in PvP. I already stated multiple times I don't want to Force PvP on anyone. People are worried about Dev time. This would be any easy way to do that. IE Look at Ballista from FFXI. It was an Open World area that you HAD TO REGISTER TO PARTICPATE in the on-going PvP match.

If you're going to jump into a thread you should read the rest of it. Along with everyone else because there have been these points clarified multiple times.

"BUT THE NEW PLAYERS GETTING GANKED" Has been answered and counterpointed endlessly. No one is asking to go around ganking people.

I’m kind of at a loss here. I was the one who argued adamantly against an environment that included the possibility of ganking. They compromised with my point and said it should be either: an instanced open world zone for PVP, or a toggle option you yourself have to say “I want to PVP.” Our point was made. It was listened to.

Can we focus on how we can make this work now instead of telling all these very understanding people to find a new game or that their desires for a seperate zone so they can PVP with each other are impossible? Or shouldn’t be done?

Open world PvP =/= Anarchy PvP. Why do so many people equate that? Even when it's clearly stated in this thread that it's not.

This is how it looks like if you just surface read this thread (and all other OW PvP threads):

PvP players: Willing to go the extra mile to compromise with PvE.
PvE players: PvP is cancer and should die!

Of course there is more to it...

I did see one other good argument against open world pvp though. If the system is exploitable, like being able to attack players with PvP flag -etc- set off, it would be very bad for the game. I can understand the concern perhaps, but the idea assumes it would work.

The other "good" argument is: "I will get ganked", which assumes some sort of PvP Anarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintersandman

We already have PvP why can't we expand on it. Again I am tired of having an instanced zone which all feast and frontlines are.

---

That SE did it in FFXI is beside the point, this game is not FFXI. Its nice they did it there but that doesn't mean it could or should be done here, the same holds true for any other game. That any given map is dead doesn't change the fact that you want to remove it from PvE and make it into a PvP zone. Why not just ask for a new PvP map tailored to PvP instead of taking something away from PvE? If you dont want an instance mode then ask for a non-instanced mode for PvP.

So which is your goal, to get new modes/maps for PvP or to force PvP into a PvE map?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guesswhat

The other "good" argument is: "I will get ganked", which assumes some sort of PvP Anarchy.

---

Again, I've already listed the reasons why you'll get instanced based over 'open world', but I'll go over the one you've overlooked again.

Having instance based insures activity for anything objective related. Without it, you're talking about roaming an empty zone when objectives cannot be completed if you're playing during in active times. For Frontlines - having enough people to actually participate in the core Objective mechanic is a prerequisite for the instance to exist in the first place - guaranteeing that objective based play and team play are the priorities. Short of that, yes, is Anarchy PvP, which really is the only innate value of open world.

So don't pretend you are compromising. Frontlines is the compromise already. Large zones with many modes and multiple objectives enticing groups to split and diverge as needed. Asking for continual compromises until you actually get exactly what you want isn't compromise.

And to correct another argument based off of fallacy - for those who don't remember - Slaughter was not objective-less Deathmatch. It was point-based deathmatch and the largest portions of points were off of NPC targets at specific locations that re-spawned regularly- which wasn't all that different from Shatter, except if you think of the ICE as capable of fighting back. I still prefer it to Shatter, honestly.

So, here are your list of reasons why not:
- Instancing Guarantees adequate participation in order for the event to occur - Open World does not. (This also prevents the need for a World Timer on events and allows people to do an event when there's enough people available - and not be limited to an arbitrary schedule.)

- Instancing Resets the map regularly so lingering map objectives (think PvP forts) do not become monopolized for long periods of time. - Open World frequently have favorites/dominating groups per player pool.

- Guaranteed participation assures that groups are (for the most part) balanced as far as warm bodies go (not class balance, this is more or less on the player base) This is better enforced in 4v4 in which the parties are actually forced to be balanced - we'll see how balanced something like Rival Wings becomes. Open World does not regulate this by default almost guaranteeing unbalanced participation. The only way to resolve that would to make it single-player queue only to evenly distribute forces,which would not go over well to any PvP community.

- With Open World the likelyhood of one on one combat would necessitate better balancing of classes for 1v1 combat - and SE can't even balance Teamplay here, let's be honest. But at least with focused objective play they have less factors to work against.



There is so much that can and does go wrong with Open World that a development team focused on making PvP accessible, fun and team-centric (Remember, they're looking to MOBAs and other E-Sports for inspiration, which is pointedly not Open World) is not going to look at Open World and think "Yeah, we can handle this workload." This is not including how notorious SE is right now with the breath and depth (or lack thereof) of PvP right now. This isn't as easy as programming an instance. You're asking a major undertaking that is severely divergent in both development and theme.

It doesn't bother me that you want it ,but you generally don't seem to get that the moment you ask for Open World, you're not asking for a compromise, you're asking something extra. The game would still be healthy if PvP did not exist. PvP would still be going on if it was just The Feast or the Fold, and they added decent rewards to that. But they added something large scale with decently large maps with varying objective styles - Frontlines. You're asking them to cross a line and created something constantly open - there is no compromise to that; just debating the rule-set within the thing you would be getting.




Given all of this, this is what I speculate they will do:
They will likely continue to add different types of Frontline content to continue to satisfy the objective desires contained in Open World play, while addressing Open World's faults - one of the key components of that is keeping it instanced. I simply don't see enough of a reason for them to cross the line to Open World PvP, when they have a multitude of readily available alternatives.

But don't feel alone in this frustration and disappointment - there's very little to be said of Open World PvE content either, which is another reason why I feel crossing that line for PvP isn't something they're going to support.

As far as my personal desire - I don't want it because I know they won't do it right. PvP needs to be built well from the ground up with a large development team behind it. While I do enjoy a bit of the PVP we have going now, I don't have the confidence that SE has the capacity, nor the motivation, to make that level of investment and make it right. I'd rather they not do it than to get something potentially more catastrophic than Diadem.

So let me turn the phrase. Look at our track record for PvP and other content in this game right now. Let's set aside the speculation of 'should' or 'will they'. Tell me honestly, in your assessment, can SE, with everything we seen, truly make a satisfactory Open World PvP? I'm sorry to say, I don't think so - and I'd rather them make a separate project (game) from the ground up to support that desire.

Until then, I'll sate myself with the upcoming Dissidia game and Frontlines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyrist

Having instance based insures activity for anything objective related. Without it, you're talking about roaming an empty zone when objectives cannot be completed if you're playing during in active times.

---

Just pointing out you can have objectives in an open world map. Just have timed events. Basically one big pvp fate that is scheduled and people can see when the next one is and whoever feels like it shows up.

That doesn't negate any of the other valid points you have made (which you've got some really good ones), but just saying...An open world map does not have to always equate objective-less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squintina

Just pointing out you can have objectives in an open world map. Just have timed events. Basically one big pvp fate that is scheduled and people can see when the next one is and whoever feels like it shows up.

That doesn't negate any of the other valid points you have made (which you've got some really good ones), but just saying...An open world map does not have to always equate objective-less.

---

Note the above edit to clarify what I meant by that point:

Quote:

---

- Instancing Guarantees adequate participation in order for the event to occur - Open World does not. (This also prevents the need for a World Timer on events and allows people to do an event when there's enough people available - and not be limited to an arbitrary schedule.)

---

I'm well aware of objective open world PvP - I was a major participator of Aion's open PvP system when it first came out. I'm also highly aware of the flaws such a system can have even when designed from the ground up.

My issue is that there does not seem to be enough respect from those who are requesting it on just how much of an undertaking this would be to an already beleaguered team - as well as considering the development style of said team that seems to favor slicing aspects of MMO Tropes down to its core components - we don't get specialized or diverse builds because they know players will pressure always for BiS along this same vein.

My observation is that Frontlines is their attempt to distill elements of PvP similarly, and are far more likely to create objective based instance play inspired by favorite Open World activities, then create an Open World for PvP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alien_Gamer

That SE did it in FFXI is beside the point, this game is not FFXI. Its nice they did it there but that doesn't mean it could or should be done here, the same holds true for any other game. That any given map is dead doesn't change the fact that you want to remove it from PvE and make it into a PvP zone. Why not just ask for a new PvP map tailored to PvP instead of taking something away from PvE? If you dont want an instance mode then ask for a non-instanced mode for PvP.

So which is your goal, to get new modes/maps for PvP or to force PvP into a PvE map?

---

You missed the point entirely. It was an example of how PvE and PvP could co-exist in a manner that doesn't promote ganking and can be done in an open world Zone.

You don't have to take away from one to provide another aspect. Which is again the reason why I brought up FFXI. It was done in the past and can be done again.

Should is subjective based upon the interpreter.

The skill reduction from 3.0 - 4.0 is the most backwards thing SE could have done to enable co-existing of PvP in PvE environments.

My objective? Why does it have to be one or the other?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintersandman

You don\\'t have to take away from one to provide another aspect. Which is again the reason why I brought up FFXI. It was done in the past and can be done again...

My objective? Why does it have to be one or the other?

---

Limited resources and a standard of quality to attempt to maintain.

It\\'s common knowledge that the development team is at capacity. So yes it is a fair judgement to make to say adding time to one thing will take away from others. We were just told how our loss of dungeons added other quality of life and gameplay changes. You can\\'t make that statement creditable in face of currently known facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyrist

Limited resources and a standard of quality to attempt to maintain.

It\\'s common knowledge that the development team is at capacity. So yes it is a fair judgement to make to say adding time to one thing will take away from others. We were just told how our loss of dungeons added other quality of life and gameplay changes. You can\\'t make that statement creditable in face of currently known facts.

---

This is the misconception. I am not asking for everything now, I am making requests for future updates. Isn't that what its about. So with that said why does it have to be one or the other?

You can go back through the forums and you can see that there are things that were requested years before they were implemented.

Also lastly as the consumer of the product, it is my responsibility to make feature requests that benefit my interests. Let them figure out if it can, *should*, or is capable of being done.

By all means. Shoot for the moon. But the misconception is still on your part. Workload on this project is going to deduct from something else -now or later. Speaking as a professional analyst - it is a question of additive value verses other potential or pending projects. When you are running a group at capacity with no plans for expansion, you are picking and choosing a lot more tightly.

As a customer it's always been a practice of mine to curb expectation to what is reasonable, feasible and fitting for the context. I'm well within my bounds to speculate that crossing the open world pvp line falls within none of these and to caution you against raising your hopes and expectations.

Conversely, making well grounded suggestions could greatly increase your chances of seeing them pan out.

Pretty sure yoshi-p said they have a dedicated pvp development team. I don't see how a dedicated pvp team takes away from anything pve related.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyrist

Workload on this project is going to deduct from something else -now or later. Speaking as a professional analyst - it is a question of additive value verses other potential or pending projects. When you are running a group at capacity with no plans for expansion, you are picking and choosing a lot more tightly.

---

Well, we already got a new PvP mode, it will be another 3 years before we'l get something new for PvP.
As people already said, PvP playerbase is a minority in FF XIV.
(Like what...0.5%? or less)

It's amazing that we got a new PvP mode in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyrist

Speaking as a professional analyst - it is a question of additive value verses other potential or pending projects. When you are running a group at capacity with no plans for expansion, you are picking and choosing a lot more tightly.

---

I think the misconception is on your end my friend. People have been asking for Red Mage for years and they finally got it. They asked for Samurai for years and finally got it. You are basically stating that if you want something like a new job, new dungeon idea, etc etc... Lets think about what the dev team can do... yeah that doesn't make any sense. As a professional analyst you should also realize the most valuable thing anyone can give is their time. That is the only thing you can't give back. And with that being said since I am giving my time to this game I am going to demand the most out of it that I can. I love this game and there is no reason that I should do anything less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintersandman

My objective? Why does it have to be one or the other?

---

If you can have everything you want without changing a PvE map then the only reason to do so is to change a PvE map which runs counter to you stating you just want more options for PvP. Be honest with what you're asking for.

From everything you've stated you've made it clear that you don't really want more options for PvP, you want to try and move PvP into the PvE areas of the game and convert PvE maps into PvP. Regardless of the fact that SE did create PVP in this game, it is primarily a PvE game and you're trying to force it to be a hybrid which is only going to anger other people. If you want a game that is primarily a PvP game then you should go play a PvP game instead of trying to change this into one.

I know you like PvP and want to do it more but based on how few people play it, PvP is not something most people in this game do; I say this based off comments I see in the game and on the forums about how few people actually play and how long queue times can get because of it. And to be blunt, if it were more popular the devs would be devoting a lot more resources to it and releasing more content for it. As it stands, this is a PvE game.

I've said it before, if you want more modes or maps I'm all for it, you should have more options to enjoy what you enjoy. But I draw the line at bringing PvP into PvE areas. There is no reason to ask for this except to push PvP into a PvE area.

If you want more modes or maps for modes then start suggesting that and stop asking to convert a PvE map into PvP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintersandman

I think the misconception is on your end my friend. People have been asking for Red Mage for years and they finally got it. They asked for Samurai for years and finally got it.

---

Logical fallacies above - Red Herring, Strawman.

New Jobs are part of the normal rotation of content being added in, as is New Frontline Zones/Content. You're talking creating an entirely new concept (to this team), not a new variety to already existing and anticipated content. They're categorically different - as time is already budgeted for new Jobs, and Samurai was already intended. Red Mage was massive popular demand by both crew and player, which was set up by a slip of the tongue in game dialogue - and there was a slot for a new job to fill.

Open World PvP is a completely different open world concept, Jobs are things already anticipated and budgeted for. Remember, zero sum game. It'd be very realistic (though highly unlikely) that the crew would have to sacrifice something like the creation of Jobs for an entire expansion cycle to have time for something as massive as implementing Open World.

Again, you're lacking a great deal of understanding and respect on how basic IT workflow occurs. Sorry, but from what I've seen of the development team's trends Open World PvP is just not feasible or popular enough for them to pull the allocated manpower out of pending and future projects - especially compared to open world PvE content which we're really not getting either. You have development trends (the base plan of the developers leeway for adaptation), popularity, and objectivity are against it.

Again, just advising you to curb your expectations here and perhaps adapt your suggestion to something like expanding front-lines to contain your favorite Open World PvP objectives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyrist

Again, just advising you to curb your expectations here and perhaps adapt your suggestion to something like expanding front-lines to contain your favorite Open World PvP objectives.

---

I think they all are doing so. So far they gave come to an agreement for a flag for PVP toggle OR an instanced zome where it is a free for all PVP area. That’s really all they want. They could even make it an instance - like the grounds of shatter - that only ends when you decide to exit. It would be a very nice compromise, no PVE players will be threatened, and people will be able to have some semblence of the basic idea.

They all have been compromising and being reasonable this whole time - maybe quit crushing the dream? Things will only come about in this game if we are vocal about what we want out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyrist

.

---

Well, yes that's all good, I'm not sure why you quote me on this. Perhaps it seems I'm arguing for open world PvP in this game? I guess that's fair; it's the topic after all.

I'm merely commenting in on how (many, not all) people perceive the idea of open world PvP, and how it's naturally assumed to be anarchy in nature. This ties in to the main arguments against OW PvP, as an idea, in any game.
The argument: "I will get ganked", assumes a limit to restrictions.
The argument: "I will be harassed if I don't participate" is ok I guess, but, blacklists.
The only truly good argument, imo, or rather an understandable concern, is that OW PvP could be exploitable/hackable.

Ideally, imo, every game that has a open world with a battle system should have the perfect OW PvP implemented. Ideally being the key word here. That goes for any concept, not just OW PvP (housing, crafting, etc.). It's up to the developers of each game to evaluate if the concept is worth the resources spent, and/or if it fits how the game is designed.

Personally I would design any mmo with a battle system around PvP mechanics, and develop PvE (if any) based on that. I think the game could potentially get a much longer lifespan this way.

Would I like OW PvP in ff14? Ideally yes, but I don't think it's needed and worth the resources considering how low % would participate at this point. I actually agree with most of your post.

On the compromise thing. At least concerning this thread only, yes, the "PvP peeps" realise to what extent they have to compromise, whereas the majority of "PvE peeps" just instantly shuts it the idea down. If either side is reasonable or not is another topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alien_Gamer

If you want more modes or maps for modes then start suggesting that and stop asking to convert a PvE map into PvP.

---

I am asking for PvP content that is not instance based. People complained about Dev time, making an entire new zone would cause massively more dev time. New zone thinking the scale of Diadem, etc. Using an already existing map is just a thought to alleviate that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyrist

Again, you're lacking a great deal of understanding and respect on how basic IT workflow occurs.

---

I work with IT folks all the time, so I fully understand their workflow. If something becomes important enough they will find a way to make it happen. As has been already communicated there is a dedicated PvP team. So there is already dev time allocated to PvP which wouldn't necessarily take away from Job creation or anything else so you invalidated the rest of your post.

Cite source. Having a team does not mean dedicated. I work in multiple pools myself. Also working with does not garner the same understanding as working in, as I've been on both sides of the fence there.

As far as allocation of pvp development time, I've already addressed that there are a littiany of current issues pending as well as multiple reasons as to why crossing the line to open world play comes with severe innate flaws in the core mechanical structure that. I recommend you take the time to read, consider and address those instead of cherry picking the ones you think are good to argue - or misinterpret to your advantage. I'll address other points when time allows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyrist

I recommend you take the time to read, consider and address those instead of cherry picking the ones you think are good to argue - or misinterpret to your advantage. I'll address other points when time allows.

---

I don't see many flaws with merging the two. The biggest glaring one was the 4.0 skill consolidation which pushed any merge of the two further away. Potential hacks to attacking non flagged players they have figured out already. The same principle applies to attacking someones levequest target.

I will clarify further. I work IN an IT field and so I fully understand the workflow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guesswhat

I'm merely commenting in on how (many, not all) people perceive the idea of open world PvP, and how it's naturally assumed to be anarchy in nature. This ties in to the main arguments against OW PvP, as an idea, in any game.
The argument: "I will get ganked", assumes a limit to restrictions.
The argument: "I will be harassed if I don't participate" is ok I guess, but, blacklists.
The only truly good argument, imo, or rather an understandable concern, is that OW PvP could be exploitable/hackable.

---

This isn't assuming. We have a pretty long history of open world, and that's really how its been. You can't really create systems to contain players or organize them like that. I mean, you can't prevent ganking at all, because ganking is just high level people attacking low level people, or groups attacking smaller groups or single people. The harassing thing is human nature. If someone wants to fight you, they are going to try and get you to pit on your flag.

There actually was a brief resurgence in the idea that open world PvP would save MMOs from the staleness of themeparks. This was in the mid 2000s, and games like Darkfall and Mortal Online arose to try and solve this. Short answer was that they didn't, and they failed miserably, although being indie didn't help either. I keep mentioning Aion in this thread because that was Aion's big hook, realm vs realm PvP as the main driver of gamplay. You rifted to fight other players as early as level 20, and endgame literally was just PvP. It also tanked, hard, though it survives still.

As for compromising, it would help if SE could deliver us some decent PvE content first a bit. I don't think people want pve content thrown on the back burner for this, in the same way we're getting tired of fluff like squadrons, perform, or other things. Unfortunately the game feels a little too zero-sum now for yet another piece of side content. And yes, I'd say that about pve stuff too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RiyahArp

.

---

I think you're missing my point, maybe I'm not being clear. But I guess you're against the idea of open world pvp? You know, like people would be against an idea that could be shown to be hard to work in real life.

As for compromising, it would help if SE could deliver us some decent PvP content first a bit. I don't think people want pvp content thrown on the back burner for any pve, in the same way we're getting tired of fluff like squadrons, perform, or other things. Unfortunately the game feels a little too zero-sum now for yet another piece of side content. And yes, I'd say that about pvp stuff too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guesswhat

I think you're missing my point, maybe I'm not being clear. But I guess you're against the idea of open world pvp? You know, like people would be against an idea that could be shown to be hard to work in real life..

---

I'm not against the idea, and at this point anything would be better than "attack mid!" It's just...well, if they do it, it's going to be a nasty mess of a mode. It's not going to "work" in any sense; it's essentially going to be a gankfest and watching the imbalanced jobs solo the gimp jobs, like in every other game that tried it. It's going to end up with people camping home points and zones, and if you are going to be ok with it and that jobs like monk will be virtually useless in it, then ok. If you think SE is somehow magically going to make it work this time, you shouldn't be asking for it.

As for PvE, look...I get PvP content is slim too. But right now, you can log on for one day a week, cap tomes, do the one raid we have for a token, and that's it for a non-raider with a max job. If you raid, you have four raids that by now you either cleared and have farmed for a month, or you have three raids and one you are stuck on. Right now the only long term content we have is eureka, and its a huge gamble it will go well. if it doesn't what then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RiyahArp

I'm not against the idea...

---

Yes, I was commenting on the perceived idea, not necessarily ow PvP in this game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RiyahArp

Right now the only long term content we have is eureka, and its a huge gamble it will go well. if it doesn't what then?

---

That's how I feel about shatter and feast personally. They "failed" me in a sense. So not since seal rock have I gotten anything new so to speak.

I would love a open world pvp MAP , like Lotro does it . But with three factions.
Lotro PVP has issues right now but i love the idea .

As to lore ? Come on , Flying tortoises and cross overs from other games (FF 13), so do not trow the lore argument around here.
They can write it in here easy enough.

I dont want this idea to die. It could really pump some life into the open world for choice players. I wish we could get a response from the dev team saying what they think. I just want this to be a thing so bad. That and the 'red fate'. Bring my dreams to life!