Open world PvP Zone

[Wintersandman]

Ballista was not open world pvp.

It was in an Open World zone. It wasn't instanced which in my view is Open World PvP. Here is a nice little summary for you.

"Open World PvP" is an amalgamation of two separate thoughts: "open world" and "PvP."
An open world in a game is a game space in which players are not limited to a set path. They are free to explore the edges of the map in any order they choose, generally speaking. The map is generally on the larger side, but not every one needs to be massive like in WoW.
PvP is obviously "Player vs Player." That encompasses anything where two players compete with one another within the mechanics of the game. This colloquiallly applies primarily to RTS, RPG, and FPS games, but really it can apply to anything.
So "open world PvP" is really just any game that satisfies those two conditions.

Also lastly you don't see me whining about healers. So don't lump me in with that as you have a tendency to do on other topics.

Why should she be forced to adapt to participate in something she didn’t want to!? This is what you don’t get. We don’t want to adapt just to survive in an area because some jerk wants to kill other players. We don’t want to PVP. You keep ensuring me “oh it won’t be like that.” Then turn around and have no mercy for those who give evidence of why they don’t want it to be like the example.

This thread: Go and tell everyone oh PVP like we’re asking for is not so bad then scoff at someone who said it was such a pain in the ass not to get flagged in similar opt-in areas in other games. Ugh.

A: I am not going to apologize to someone who has continuously showed they will not adapt. This isn't the first thread Lodestone Bait has showed a refusal to adapt. Could you imagine what the world would be like if humans didn't adapt?
B: I stated that you could go through the game and not have to PvP ever. Like ever. But then the person brought up specifically unique circumstances that were a hindrance, which could be avoided if pvp annoyed a person that much.
C: No one has asked for someone to be prey, which also goes to point B. Why bring up an arbitrary characteristic from another game when people have specifically asked for it to be completely voluntary.
D: I also lack empathy for someone who has to even hide their in game name and hide behind a character named Lodestone Bait. It just reeks of troll to me even if their point is valid.
E. I start to lack even more empathy when someone becomes a broken record. But in X Game and Y Game and Z Game. Ok well design it like this so that doesn't happen. But X game and Y Game and Z Game. We are 26 posts into this thread of PvP'ers trying to compromise but people jump in and start fear mongering when all everyone has tried to do is compromise.

So my empathy significantly goes down when a person could avoid a circumstance that frustrates them but then chooses not to.

What I do have empathy for is people who complained about goblin trains in Valkrum Dunes in FFXI where you literally had no control. You could play everything perfect and someone wipes your party because the trained goblins to your camp. This wasn't even PvP

I get why people are against getting ganked but you have people trying to compromise and one side is a brick wall.

[Zojha]

This isn't the first thread Lodestone Bait has showed a refusal to adapt.

And statements like these are the reason I find discussing with you pointless.

You have absolutely no idea what I am doing and what I am not doing. You are assuming, you are projecting, you are ignoring points in favor of personal attacks and fell strawmen like its going out of style. And even while doing that, you're doing it badly.

If you had a guild, it was usually easier to just kill the troublemakers and spawncamp them until they got bored and learned their lesson.

That was my closing sentence in the first post on the topic. Even if we did assume that I brought it up solely because I personally had troubles with it and not simply to make a point, then right there would be the statement how I personally adapted to it. You know, the very thing you allege me of refusing. If we don't assume me to be personally affected in the first place, then concluding anything about my own behavior from the post is arbitrary. Ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet, so either you admit to your statement being a baseless ad hominem, or we can logically conclude the pope is made of green cheese.
What's worse, you were so busy listing the extra hoops one had to jump through in order to avoid PvP on a PvE server that you missed that the fact that you had to jump through extra hoops was the point all along. And that's a recurring issue with your argumentation.

Adapting to an issue does not solve it - If you got a hole in the boat, you can adapt to it by grabbing a bucket, but the hole still persists.
And clamoring for a solution does not imply a lack of adaption - You can ask for the hole to be repaired and still grab a bucket until it is.
The thing here is that adapting to an issue is unnecessary when you can solve it instead. And I find talking solutions worlds more interesting and relevant to an issue than talking adaption, which you seem to mistake for refusing to adapt.

So all I did was pointing out an issue that factually existed in known incarnations of world PvP and then, since you were preoccupied with pointing out ways to adapt to the issue, a solution to it that should be implemented in advance so that the issue doesn't even come up and adaption becomes unnecessary. We call that learning from the past mistakes of others so we don't repeat them. Something humans would not have come very far without either, since you like to blow that horn.
(Also, I'd advise going by my forum name instead of the character name, because I have 8 characters and none is individually representative of me until achievements become account-wide. It's shorter to boot when I'm using my forum alias.)


None of that has anything to do with compromises. The compromise on the topic lies in the fact that the open world PvP is to be optional, the only thing worth discussing afterwards are the modalities of "optional".
The important questions are:
1) What does optional entail?
2) What measures are needed to make it optional?
3) How do you stimulate participation in an entirely optional activity without compromising its optional status?

That's all there is. And that can refer to both the zone as a whole or the PvP within the zone.

The last question is most likely gonna be the dealbreaker, though, because the only way to keep something optional is via inclusive rewards (as opposed to exclusive, because those don't leave you a choice if you want them) and if the community has shown one thing fairly consistently, it's that they'll prefer the path of least resistance to a given reward if faced with a choice.

[Squintina]

None of that has anything to do with compromises. The compromise on the topic lies in the fact that the open world PvP is to be optional, the only thing worth discussing afterwards are the modalities of "optional".
The important questions are:
1) What does optional entail?
2) What measures are needed to make it optional?
3) How do you stimulate participation in an entirely optional activity without compromising its optional status?

That's all there is. And that can refer to both the zone as a whole or the PvP within the zone.

The last question is most likely gonna be the dealbreaker, though, because the only way to keep something optional is via inclusive rewards (as opposed to exclusive, because those don't leave you a choice if you want them) and if the community has shown one thing fairly consistently, it's that they'll prefer the path of least resistance to a given reward if faced with a choice.

Let's discuss the meaning of "optional" then and how to inforce it (#1 an #2 are being answered together).
In my answer I will assume the version of "Open World" will be a separate zone one can port to.

I am not answering the version of having pvp in existing pve maps, as that would have different requirements, and also because I honestly believe having a non-queued pvp zone is the better alternative as it gives developers something more defined to work with, and expands the possibilities of pvp fates and events in said zone.

Optional and details
In my view (which of course anyone is free to disagree with), in regards to pvp specifically, optional = not accidental.
In other words
- no one can accidentally walk into a pvp zone
- OR if they do there are clear signs that it is a pvp zone (even if it's a big gigantic red "PVP ZONE" across the screen for all I care)
- all entrances/aetherytes have a small non-fighting zone to prevent accidental pvp
- no one has pvp flags put on by default, etc... Basically making sure all pvp is done by choice
- no one can be tricked into pvp (like that wow story about pvpers trying to get people to accidentally target them and turn on pvp by doing a skill. In such a case, the skill should just do nothing and give an error message of "You are trying to target a pvp player. You need to turn on pvp mode". Same with healing a player who has pvp turned on, if you're not in pvp, it won't let you heal them)
- to prevent abuse, once a person has turned on pvp flag, they can't turn it off during combat (but they can turn it off after if they want to just afk for a bit in the zone without going to a safe area)

As far as rewards go, which will answer #3, I disagree with both of your points.

Inclusive rewards:
Yes people generally will go the least path of resistance, but that is generality and also subjective to what a person considers "least resistance". A person who enjoys pvp certainly might consider doing pvp fates in a special zone to be less annoying than dungeons, they might even do so while being queued for a frontline/feast/RW match during non-peak hours, waiting for it to pop. A non-pvper might also try it out for a few minutes a day just because. This is visible already in the current pvp. I've known people who don't particularly enjoy pvp who do at the very least the roulette and sometimes more to get creation because they're just not in the mood for a dungeon/trial.

While it might not be a huge % of the population, inclusive rewards can still get some people to try things out.

Exclusive rewards: I don't think the new area would need to be exempt from exclusive rewards because anyone choosing to participate, even if they don't like pvp, is still making that choice. It's no different than in the current pvp. Anyone who wants to glamour pvp gear has to choose to do some pvp to get wolf marks, anyone who wants the achievements has to choose to do so, same with the garo mounts, and feast ranking rewards. Generally speaking I don't see anyone complaining about it because if they do decide to go for it, they are aware they have to do pvp, and what really matters is not having any "accidental pvp".

Rewards overall:
So I think a balance of both inclusive and exclusive rewards are key to incentivizing people to try out the map. I feel most people will accept it because the current pvp has both inclusive and exclusive rewards and generally there aren't too many people complaining about the rewards (they complain about other things instead)

Other incentives:
Rewards are nice and good but it also means that people leave once they have what they want, except for the truly die-hard. FUN activities keep people coming.

Fates.
I think having cool fates will bring people in. I'm not much of a pvp-er but if I were to try it out, I'd much rather fly to a fate than wait in a queue. Here are some fates I might consider doing.

1 - As people enter a fate, they are put into 2 teams. Each team has to protect their shipments, and more shipments come in waves. Silver/Gold Rating is a point based system. There are points for attacking, killing, and healing, super points for shipments destroyed, super points for shipments on your team left.

2 - Battle royale. everyone attacks each other. The fate area is a big large (like Odin's) and being killed by a player rezzes you automatically after 3 seconds in a random spot in the Fate area. You get point for attacking, killing, and healing. More points = more medals at the end.

I think all fates should give points for various skills that then go into the rating. This lowers the bar for new pvpers to skill get a reward for trying, even if it's only the reward that goes with Silver/Bronze rating.

Heck, even if the only way to do pvp was in the special fates, it'd still be a bump up because it's a better queue than some of the pvp modes and only needs a minimum of 2 people.

PVP dailies:
Engaging in battle (even if losing) with 10 players
Participating (any rating) in 5 pvp fates = wolf's marks (or some other reward)
Why are my PVP dailies all participation based and not winning-based? Gets more people to do them, and thus more people in the area. (same principle as the fates. If you want people in, you need participation rewards for people who are new to pvp so they don't give up right away)
But maybe the daily can give extra rewards based on kills/goldrating, not sure how to do that, but some way (maybe having separate daily quests, one for participating, one for killing/goldrating).

Weekly Zone PVP ranking
Get PVP ranks for the zone for all related activities (different activities give different points, and some activities might have point caps so people can't abuse them too much). At the end of the week a prize is mailed based on the ranking.

Scheduled events
At specific times of the day (maybe every 4 Earth hours?), fates stop spawning and a map-wise event happens (of course, not including safe zones).
These would be bigger battles with bigger objectives, like a non-queued frontline.
The PVP map would have a new UI component to show timer until next event (or an NPC in the safe areas akin to GATES in the gold saucer that says what time and what version of the event)

[RiyahArp]

The last question is most likely gonna be the dealbreaker, though, because the only way to keep something optional is via inclusive rewards (as opposed to exclusive, because those don't leave you a choice if you want them) and if the community has shown one thing fairly consistently, it's that they'll prefer the path of least resistance to a given reward if faced with a choice.

Maybe its more productive if we all answer the three questions you list. (edit)

The important questions are:
1) What does optional entail?

Essentially you don't need to do any PVP to fulfill a PVE purpose. You don't beat the main quest by stepping into Rival Wings and playing or winning a match.

2) What measures are needed to make it optional?

Pretty much make it so the rewards are never greater than pve alternatives. The reason why we had bots in Shatter was because the exp reward at the start of stormblood was far better exp/hr compared to what a DPS could get PVEing.

For some things, it can escape this. Unique glamour isn't greater, just different. Pretty much the only complain on that side was the mounts, as mounts seem to have their own player metagame of "gotta catch em all," and the pvp mounts can become hard to impossible to get (dead modes, top 100)

3) How do you stimulate participation in an entirely optional activity without compromising its optional status?

Well, some rewards help. You don't want to rely solely on player's desire, because all activities compete for time.

You also want to make it so it's not a single strict meta to win, and rewards different styles. You want people to have fun trying to get nodes solo, or fight fates in a group, or act as bait in fates to fight other players. If it just boils down to a large group of people cruising the zone to pick off stragglers in between infrequent fights with another group its bad.

Probably some sense of pride or progression, too. Changing colors on a map, to be blunt. the danger though is players become too efficient at it, and make the map all one color. Aion had this problem; its pvp was pvpve, but the "dark" side, the asmodeans, were incredibly underpopulated on all but one server when I played.

I'd talk about gameplay but we al know the problems with it already.