A PvP Driven Expansion For 7.0

[van_arn]

I think that is why people hate Zenos, and why he works. He's the pvper, and nothing matter besides settling the matter in the here and now betwixt one another with no grand plan or goal. Also on the topic of player driven narrative, static drama and being wronged has spurred grander emotions in me than the actual narrative. Being dismissed and left out of something I helped create made me loathe and hate in a way the narrative did not. It is something I remember clearer than the story.

Yeah, this is why I feel the players' perception of the harassment policies make this a no-go from the start. Actual PVP narratives would potentially start a report war, and that war would escalate if someone gets a ban attributed to the report war (even if they're banned for something completely unrelated.)

[YukikoKurosawa]

As the title suggests, SE making 7.0 a pvp driven expansion would really shake up the formula and create many interesting opportunities. First the more practical being that content would have a longer shelf life given it would be more player driven. Also it would make the open world far more interesting by during the boring, one and done zones into moving, contested fronts. They could even do monthly/seasonal rewards and titles for those that control the most land. You could also involve the crafters and gatherers by making economy player controlled. Making market board systems only work for friendly factions.

Lore wise you could justify it as a either a breakdown of the great company of Eorzea and other nations, or a scramble for the resources of the new world or southern continent. It would also open up role-playing opportunities by allowing players to settle scores with violence. I would even go so far as allowing war crimes and making a infamy/fame or hero/villain system to gauge rewards and standing. I mean, who hasn't wanted to commit warcrimes against the Lalafell menace.

Thoughts?

Counter proposal: Remove all PvP from the game.

[Caurcas]

Yeah, this is why I feel the players' perception of the harassment policies make this a no-go from the start. Actual PVP narratives would potentially start a report war, and that war would escalate if someone gets a ban attributed to the report war (even if they're banned for something completely unrelated.)

Sad that this is the culture 14 created for itself.

[Divinemights]

Counter proposal: Remove all PvP from the game.

You want those PvP rewards, learn PvP like everyone else did.
Not going to hand them to you on a silver plate.

[kaynide]

While I am behind more options for interesting and fun pvp content/rewards, I can’t fathom a world in which a highly successful 10 year game would suddenly want to shake up what has been working really well for them.

Off all the MMOs I have played, FFXIV’s development schedule has been almost like clockwork even with the pandemic raging.

[Conundrum]

"How 'bout no Goldmember, ya crazy Dutch bastard" -Dr Evil

[Misplaced_Marbles]

World pvp favours only one kind of person.

Those who derive pleasure from others misfortune.

Which is why i've always wondered why game devs keep thinking that THEIR game will be different and successful, despite the fact it has been proven over and over that most people aren't into being the buttmonkey for the entertainment of a bunch of randoms a-holes.

People have mentioned New World, and it's a pale shadow of the gank festival it was supposed to be if the devs didn't pull their head out of their backsides at the last minute in an attempt to save what was left to save. I'd imagine the OP would have moved to New World if they didn't change course, but then they'd come back in a few weeks to complain how nobody plays New World, which would of course be a great shock to us all.

[VirusOnline]

PvP Driven gameplay in a story driven MMO ?

Let's look at exhibit A that we shall call "New World" and see how the panned out.
Also, PvP driven MMO is really just a battle royale game.

[Wyakin]

As the title suggests, SE making 7.0 a pvp driven expansion would really shake up the formula and create many interesting opportunities. First the more practical being that content would have a longer shelf life given it would be more player driven. Also it would make the open world far more interesting by during the boring, one and done zones into moving, contested fronts. They could even do monthly/seasonal rewards and titles for those that control the most land. You could also involve the crafters and gatherers by making economy player controlled. Making market board systems only work for friendly factions.

Lore wise you could justify it as a either a breakdown of the great company of Eorzea and other nations, or a scramble for the resources of the new world or southern continent. It would also open up role-playing opportunities by allowing players to settle scores with violence. I would even go so far as allowing war crimes and making a infamy/fame or hero/villain system to gauge rewards and standing. I mean, who hasn't wanted to commit warcrimes against the Lalafell menace.

Thoughts?

No thanks. At no point have I ever thought what this game needs is Better PvP. It’s only since the influx of wow players recently has it become a “problem”

[van_arn]

I think that is why people hate Zenos, and why he works. He's the pvper, and nothing matter besides settling the matter in the here and now betwixt one another with no grand plan or goal. Also on the topic of player driven narrative, static drama and being wronged has spurred grander emotions in me than the actual narrative. Being dismissed and left out of something I helped create made me loathe and hate in a way the narrative did not. It is something I remember clearer than the story.

I don't think Zenos is the character to point to as the pvper ideal. Zenos is a duelist-- someone who likes to perfect his own techniques to take on any singular foe. Zenos is completely detached from other people, completely blind to anyone around him that isn't his "prey," and has no interest in allies. Seeing Zenos as a PVPer is a fundamental misunderstanding of PVP.

Ilberd is the ideal PVPer, capable of unimaginable grudges and willing to go to incredible lengths to gather together -- through any available barefaced or underhanded means -- the necessary force to take on a foe he does not like.

The PVP narrative is Ilberd's story. Someone wronged him, so he will push through as many hells as necessary to get payback. He didn't even bat an eye trading himself for something that could potentially break the world if it made them pay. He becomes frustrated when others won't take up arms; he leaps on any chance to take up arms in service to his desire. He will suffer indignity, hardship, get his hands dirty-- all in service to the goal of making them pay. And above all, he is zealously loyal to his "people." Even when they don't deserve it.

Under our current ruleset, Illberd would have been banned before he made it to the banquet in ARR.