Curse

Quantum_Cats · Jun 11, 2005, 07:47 AM // 07:47

Online games that have mastered the PvP area have usually had random PvP encounters. In the wild. In the game. This is something that Guild Wars does not have. The only way to PvP is guild battles, HoH, and arenas.

Why not implement PvP districts?

Only one for every area. And even missions would be PvP+, anyone who entered a mission or otherwise instanced area from a PvP district would all be in the same instance (don't know what else to call it, I come from UO, DAoC, and WoW). Anyone would be freely attackable unless they were in your guild or party, and your guildmates/team-mates names would be a different color from everyone else.

Monsters would be on a respawn timer, and bosses would be too. Loot would be increased. You would be able to use a Scalping Kit on a corpse, and get that person's head as an item to decorate your guild hall with (Add a row of spikes that you can put heads on somewhere?). Or, you could hand the head in to a town Bounty Collector, to check if there is a bounty on the person, set by other people at the Bounty Collector, which would only be accessible in PvP districts. Vendors would also have a slightly lower price on items.

Allow a function for guild alliances, so you wouldn't accidentally attack an allied guild in a PvP+ area. Add a rank system, but don't let players directly access it. Show it by hueing people the way bosses are hued in PvP areas. The higher rank on someone, the more definite their "aura", and add a color scale to it as well.

Keep guild halls instanced the way they are.

This wouldn't be too late to fit in the list for the next expansion, would it?

Digital Limit · Jun 11, 2005, 08:26 AM // 08:26

Sounds like fun.

Aaaaagh · Jun 11, 2005, 10:48 AM // 10:48

I reeeeeeeeally dont think this would work at all. Your talking about taking an instanced game, and creating some huge mmorpg out of it. Not a small amount of work. I do enjoy random pvp--alot. Nothing like the rush of constantly looking over your shoulder, and then jsut when your not, blamo! But thats just not what GW is about, its about skill, and it requires significantly less skill to jump a group of players already engaged in another fight.

Shadow_Avenger · Jun 11, 2005, 10:57 AM // 10:57

The could add one on one bouts to the arenas though, and have tournaments based on this. If players didn't join they could be npc alternatives. A trophy or gold reward at the end.

Chronos the Defiler · Jun 11, 2005, 02:06 PM // 14:06

i have posted this type of idea multiple times, and am alwasy flamed for it....

i had more of an idea that mixed PVP with the PVE way of map travel and monster spawns...

Amnisac · Jun 11, 2005, 02:11 PM // 14:11

The name and basis of Guild Wars implies that guild have wars together. Not random passerbyers battling out for no good reason.

Loviatar · Jun 11, 2005, 02:48 PM // 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quantum_Cats

Why not implement PvP districts?

because the name of this game is not GANKFEST

Gerbill · Jun 11, 2005, 02:54 PM // 14:54

This game has a Teambased player versuse player system.

if you'd end up with 1vs1 duels you'll have people crying for nerves because they always lose, while they're only fighting more skilled players and professions which counter their own professions.

Only in a team can everyone have their righteous place, that's what Guildwars is about.

And about implementing it, it doesn't seem possible, only for arena districts perhaps but not in the PVE part just.. no, high lvl players with lots of skills, would just go to ascalon areas to gank and that just sucks big time.

Quantum_Cats · Jun 11, 2005, 04:24 PM // 16:24

There would be no ganking of newbs, because you would have to choose to play in a PvP district. If you don't want to fight, you don't have to.

Random PvP encounters are what make PvP FUN. Make the max limit on groups in PvP Districts/Instances 4. If people are not in the same group, they cannot heal or buff each other.

If all instances being PvP'd is impossible, why not just towns and missions? Missions are the closest thing this game has to dungeons. In every other game that has let me do it, PvP in dungeons is ALWAYS the most fun. Monsters in the area add a little bit of an unknown factor to it.

And who says people whining about 1 vs 1 balance matter? They can group up. It is called GUILD wars, right?

But another note about designing the game around the title- You can't even fight with your whole guild. You can only go 8 at a time. My guild has a hell of a lot more than that. Just to point that out.

And no, I don't want to make a huge MMORPG out of this game. It would cost money monthly then. I'm talking make every PvP area a seperate instance, the way everything is now, just allow people to attack each other in them.

Silmor · Jun 11, 2005, 05:10 PM // 17:10

Quote:

I'm talking make every PvP area a seperate instance, the way everything is now, just allow people to attack each other in them.

Instance = one party gets an entire map to themselves. This map has a tailored starting point, encounters, quest statuses and everything depending on this group, especially true for missions. Launching multiple groups into one instance would mean they'd need to start at different locations, would need to wait for eachother to start, and given the huge scope of maps compared to arenas would very likely never see eachother, rather notice that certain portions of the map are entirely devoid of creatures; there would be no way to tell if the other group reached their destination and travelled onwards, and conflicting quests would mean a late-coming group would basically have the quest finished for them by the 'opposing' party. It messes the current design up in many, many ways.

What you are suggesting moves directly away from instancing, and more towards MMORPG. When using instances, different groups will be in different instances, hence no PvP between them is possible - that's quite simply the nature of instances.

Finally, Guild Wars is called Guild Wars because of the background story - the time before the Charr invaded was the era of the Guild Wars. I'd wish people would stop using it as an excuse to try to make this game something it's not.

johnnylange · Jun 11, 2005, 05:12 PM // 17:12

I always enjoyed going hostle on noobs in D2, lmao! But, being the hunter is always better than being the hunted. So I learned that it's better to have an option were both people have to agree to Pvp first. I like this idea.

Quantum_Cats · Jun 11, 2005, 05:22 PM // 17:22

Basically, monsters would respawn, and people would all start in one of 5 "safe" starting locations.

Loot would be increased. It also would not drop specifically for one person. Whoever gets to it first would be able to pick it up. People could bring henchmen and scoop all the loot, but it would put them at a disadvantage (AI sucks) if a group of actual people came.

This would add a new style of play to the game, and allow for more robust PvP interaction. You could go to a PvP district, enter the mission, and JUST FIGHT MONSTERS for increased loot or runes to unlock or whatever you want to fight monsters for. And it's good that the instances are big, because you don't want everyone on top of each other if people are going to PvP.

Groups would go out to kill monsters, and possibly encounter other hostile groups vying for the same monster. They could then fight, giving PvP an actual meaning, as opposed to fighting for the honor of imaginary gods.

Quote:

When using instances, different groups will be in different instances, hence no PvP between them is possible.

Right... I want to make it so different groups will be in the same instance, and PvP between them would be possible, but ONLY IN PVP DISTRICTS and PVP DISTRICT MISSIONS. There would only be one "instance", and people could leave and enter at any time.

Quote:

And Guild Wars is called Guild Wars because of the background story - the time before the Charr invaded was the era of the Guild Wars. I'd wish people would stop using it as an excuse to try to make this game something it's not.

Read my post. I only responded to other people citing the title Guild Wars. I don't think the game being called "Guild Wars" should define how the game is played in ANY WAY. And I pointed out that it really doesn't. Read thoroughly before responding next time, PLEASE.

DarrenJasper · Jun 11, 2005, 05:40 PM // 17:40

It does sound like fun, and I would love to see it. How it would be balanced is a question that nags me... Personally I wouldn't care if it was as perfectly balanced as arenas, but other people would complain and try to make ANet feel crummy for adding it in the first place.

What I would really love to see is some kind of capturable territory that guilds could fight over and carve out their own domains. I don't ever expect to, since that's less GW and more Shadowbane, but since the PvP is so good I still want to see its potential pushed in some new and interesting scenarios.

Shadow_Avenger · Jun 11, 2005, 06:52 PM // 18:52

Sounds like you guys actually want Domination maps, but with Hostile NPC's guarding each control point.
The team who either captures all control points wins, or the team left alive wins.
Each control point would have a summoning horn at its boundary, these horns would actually summon more NPC hostiles, but can only be triggered by opposing teams and are on a 1-2 min timer per use.
If an area is left unattended for 5 mins, then who ever captured it would lose control and NPC would respawn.
Have teams of 8, and each map have 5 dommination points, then teams would have to split up to conqure entire maps.
There could end up being some very tactical battles, dependant on map designs.
You would also have a time limit on the event, 15-30 mins.
You would always have to have 1 more domination point than teams allowed on map.
The maps would also have to be relatively same, perhaps similar in size to Thirsty river or Elona. ( i think them are the maps, the one to collect the crystals and the one you have to kill the enemy teams / priests )
Each team would have to spawn at opposite sides of the maps.

Deagol · Jun 11, 2005, 07:25 PM // 19:25

You really should play a MMORPG instead, if you want random encounters. MMORPGs are designed for that kind of thing. Guild Wars is not. Adding it would be an entirely different game.

However, there is nothing to prevent a PvP map with lots of monsters. No spawning would be needed, as the map would be generated from sratch for each match. Different win conditions would be possible, like collecting most mission items, killing most monsters, being the first to kill some special boss monster, getting first through the map to an exit.

Quantum_Cats · Jun 11, 2005, 11:19 PM // 23:19

Now we all know Guild Wars is an MMORPG. You just don't have to pay monthly for it.

The only thing that makes it not quite an MMORPG in the gameplay sense is you don't have to grind for years to level, and every "quest" is in an instance. Just sounds like a new take on an old genre.

It's an online roleplaying game. It's massive (how many people play it?). And it's multiplayer, because you play with multiple players. Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game.

Just because it doesn't play like EQ doesn't mean it's not an MMORPG. I mean, look at UO.

eA-Zaku · Jun 11, 2005, 11:36 PM // 23:36

I think the only way this method would work is that every instantized zone is allowable for up to 16 players. That way, two parties of 8 could encounter each other and PvP each other. But other than that, there's no real way for a mass of people to go PvP each other in the wilderness, especially not free for all.

ManadartheHealer · Jun 11, 2005, 11:42 PM // 23:42

I like the idea. It sounds really fun and would make PvP more exciting.

What I would also like (although nobody else might) is the PvP districts in towns. Everyone would start off as "Friendly" Status, but you could choose to attack them (sort of like the random animals that walk around; they are usually passive, but if you attack them they attack back). Eventually, it would be chaos... nice, bloody, chaos. Fun for me but nobody else

eA-Zaku · Jun 11, 2005, 11:44 PM // 23:44

A lot of people would enjoy that. I think an improvement on that idea would be some kind of penalty (perhaps greater death penalty) for attacking players.

See, because if someone attacks first, he gets an extra hit in, and this may give him the upperhand. So to counteract that, if the attacker somehow dies, then he has greater death penalty than if he had been the one who got mugged.

And also, maybe if you are jumped and you die, you receive no death penalty?

ManadartheHealer · Jun 11, 2005, 11:49 PM // 23:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by eA-Zaku

A lot of people would enjoy that.

Good; then it's not just me

Quote:

Originally Posted by eA-Zaku

I think an improvement on that idea would be some kind of penalty (perhaps greater death penalty) for attacking players.
See, because if someone attacks first, he gets an extra hit in, and this may give him the upperhand. So to counteract that, if the attacker somehow dies, then he has greater death penalty than if he had been the one who got mugged.
And also, maybe if you are jumped and you die, you receive no death penalty?

Perhaps it would be good if only attackers got DP (less than normal; perhaps like 5% per death when you initiated the fight). That way, there is no penalty per se for getting mugged.

Other things that would have to be thought about are things like ressurrection. How, when, where?

It would also be cool if you got some special item for mugging (no, not worth gold; just eye candy). Perhaps like a decorative skull