Check your pulse, we all may be collectively hallucinating. In an almost unexpected move, Trion has announced the impending release of three faction, cross server PvP in the form of Conquest. Not only will players be pledging their allegiance to one of three factions, they will be battling it out for domination of control points in an open world battlefield.
Three faction PvP is an oft-requested feature for fans of player-vs-player conflict, and a very unconventional move for a game like Rift to take. We’ll find out at Rift hits the public test realm.
I don’t think I can be any clearer on this point. You the players don’t like it, we the developers don’t like it and all the data we pull from the servers backs up the statement as well. Now, we could start discussing why PVP is the way it is. There are lots of reasons, some you as players know and some you don’t. Discussing that particular topic wouldn’t move us forward, now is not the time to figure out who is to blame for what and why.
Can the player vs player element of Star Trek Online be saved? Literally. PvP has never been a major focus for Star Trek Online, in fact the section of the game is so unpopular that Cryptic is willing to remove it completely without impact to the overall player base. Cryptic’s Gozer is on the forums to discuss the bad news, noting that he is now the only resource standing between PvP and total death. In the weeks to come, he shall decide the fate if Star Trek Online’s PvP continues in a new form, or dies completely.
This situation is reminiscent of the Klingon faction support. Cryptic reported last year that they would not be supporting the Klingon faction due to low resources and low player interest, however the low player interest was due to the fact that the Klingon faction was released in a very unfinished state. So this seems to be another case of Cryptic releasing a portion of the game unfinished, only to cite low interest as a reason that they aren’t able to put resources into fixing it.
I don’t think I can be any clearer on this point. You the players don’t like it, we the developers don’t like it and all the data we pull from the servers backs up the statement as well. Now, we could start discussing why PVP is the way it is. There are lots of reasons, some you as players know and some you don’t. Discussing that particular topic wouldn’t move us forward, now is not the time to figure out who is to blame for what and why.
Can the player vs player element of Star Trek Online be saved? Literally. PvP has never been a major focus for Star Trek Online, in fact the section of the game is so unpopular that Cryptic is willing to remove it completely without impact to the overall player base. Cryptic’s Gozer is on the forums to discuss the bad news, noting that he is now the only resource standing between PvP and total death. In the weeks to come, he shall decide the fate if Star Trek Online’s PvP continues in a new form, or dies completely.
This situation is reminiscent of the Klingon faction support. Cryptic reported last year that they would not be supporting the Klingon faction due to low resources and low player interest, however the low player interest was due to the fact that the Klingon faction was released in a very unfinished state. So this seems to be another case of Cryptic releasing a portion of the game unfinished, only to cite low interest as a reason that they aren’t able to put resources into fixing it.
At the beginning of the month, I did an article on Dominus, and their advertised bounty hunter system, making the point that it was woefully prone to abuse, not unlike many other bounty systems MMOs have attempted to incorporate over the past decade or so. Well the folks at Pathfinder Online must be after my own heart, because they’ve detailed their own bounty system that addresses many of my concerns.
First off, players are given the option to place a bounty when they are murdered (killed unlawfully) and apparently only at that point. Not only can you put a bounty on the person who murdered you, but anyone else who damaged you or assisted that person. So let’s say you are ganged up on by a fighter, a ranger, and a healer. You’ll be able to put a bounty on the heads of the fighter who murdered you, the ranger who stayed afar and pelted you with arrows, and the healer who healed the two.
In addition, you can specify who can redeem the bounty. The idea is that bounty hunter guilds will form up, and players can essentially contract a specific guild/player to be able to collect the bounty, preventing the killer’s friend from collecting it. But death isn’t the end: When your bounty is collected, you are given the option to re-issue it. Want to make a griefer pay? Keep resubmitting his bounty until your coffers run dry or he rage stops logging in.
This also raises a heavy risk for players who like to role play as red (criminal) gangs. Kill the wrong person, and you could find yourself on the receiving end of a very long manhunt. Granted, this whole system does not apply in cases of declared war, where killing is lawful. The hope is that this will prevent players from running around killing each other for no reason and to make a murderer’s life that much more dangerous.
Granted, there are still some ways to exploit this system, including the murderer being in secret cahoots with the mercenary guilds, but the Pathfinder solution is one of the best I’ve seen.
At the beginning of the month, I did an article on Dominus, and their advertised bounty hunter system, making the point that it was woefully prone to abuse, not unlike many other bounty systems MMOs have attempted to incorporate over the past decade or so. Well the folks at Pathfinder Online must be after my own heart, because they’ve detailed their own bounty system that addresses many of my concerns.
First off, players are given the option to place a bounty when they are murdered (killed unlawfully) and apparently only at that point. Not only can you put a bounty on the person who murdered you, but anyone else who damaged you or assisted that person. So let’s say you are ganged up on by a fighter, a ranger, and a healer. You’ll be able to put a bounty on the heads of the fighter who murdered you, the ranger who stayed afar and pelted you with arrows, and the healer who healed the two.
In addition, you can specify who can redeem the bounty. The idea is that bounty hunter guilds will form up, and players can essentially contract a specific guild/player to be able to collect the bounty, preventing the killer’s friend from collecting it. But death isn’t the end: When your bounty is collected, you are given the option to re-issue it. Want to make a griefer pay? Keep resubmitting his bounty until your coffers run dry or he rage stops logging in.
This also raises a heavy risk for players who like to role play as red (criminal) gangs. Kill the wrong person, and you could find yourself on the receiving end of a very long manhunt. Granted, this whole system does not apply in cases of declared war, where killing is lawful. The hope is that this will prevent players from running around killing each other for no reason and to make a murderer’s life that much more dangerous.
Granted, there are still some ways to exploit this system, including the murderer being in secret cahoots with the mercenary guilds, but the Pathfinder solution is one of the best I’ve seen.
I’m confused about The Old Republic. On one hand, I’ve seen players complaining of over instancing on Ilum, but if Bioware was truly instance-heavy, the least they could do is balance out the population on the open world PvP planets. Granted, if Bioware had introduced the third Vulcan faction as I had suggested back in 2011, we wouldn’t be having this problem right now.
Sorry, I wanted to preempt any Dark Age of Camelot people who were ready to talk about the 3-faction master race.
In the past, Everquest has been one of the few MMOs to dabble in, shall we say, unconventional alternate rule servers. Sure, most games you come across nowadays have some combination of PvE, PvP, and RP, and you can’t get much better than a PvP-RP server, when striking someone with your sword as you scream “you must construct additional pylons!” before your World of Warcraft guild gives you the final boot for “vagrant sarcasm.” But that was years ago when I was still interested in Starcraft. The problem with alternate rule servers is that updates have to be coded once for each ruleset, to balance and work out bugs. As Ultima found out, your bastard sword (their word, not mine) of Gargoyle slaying worked fine when gargoyles were NPCs, but when they become a player race, the weapon is suddenly very overpowered.
The Age of Conan team has desired to implement alternate rule servers, and up until now just haven’t had the utilities. In this month’s monthly development update, Craig Morrison talks about how some players just aren’t satisfied with the level of ass-whooping they can dish out in AoC, and want to take that limit further:
“However, as we have gone on we see that there is clearly a very dedicated, and very loyal, group of players who long for a more brutal and demanding PVP environment. It has become increasingly apparent that the desires of that section of our playerbase simply want something a little bit further away from the experience that the mainstream majority are comfortable with.”
Can you guess what that mechanic is? Trust me, if you just blindly dive into an article, the surprise isn’t ruined from the start. Funcom plans to implement two (one for US, one for EU) PvP servers for Age of Conan, featuring full loot. The following rules will apply:
One character limit, no transfers.
No NPC guards.
PvP re-enabled in Tortage areas that were previously removed.
Other PvP systems may be changed.
The specifics are not in on the Age of Conan loot system. Morrison was able to confirm that equipped gear will likely be off-limits from looting, and that the loot will likely be a combination of inventory items and generated loot (so Age of Conan is becoming like the 2008-early 2011 PvP in Runescape?). Expect more news before the server launches in early May.
We hope to have the new rule-set ready to roll out in early May, but we will hopefully deploy a version to the PVP test dimension prior to that for some public testing. Keep your eyes on the weekly community updates for more information as to when that will happen.
The announcement that free trade is coming back to Runescape has sent players into a frenzy, more so asking the question of what will remain in the game when this update goes live. There have been quite a few updates over the past three years that conflict with there being a dangerous wilderness, that Jagex is going to have to look at them on a case by case basis.
Luckily, on the new Runescape page, where Jagex has taken the liberty of actually requiring players to sign in to vote, which oddly enough only as 300,000 votes a couple days later (as opposed to the 1.2 million votes within 24 hours that the first poll achieved through no botting whatsoever).
There will be no limits on trade, both player to player, through the Grand Exchange, and via the party room.
Unlimited staking will return.
The item lending, assist, and lootshare/coinshare will remain.
The wilderness will be once again open to Player Vs Player combat.
Quests and activities in the wilderness will be moved to other areas.
There will be new ways to achieve PvP Gear.
Revenants will be relocated.
Gravestones will remain, but only outside of the wilderness.
PVP/Bounty Hunter worlds will be removed.
Wilderness content is being reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
It will be interesting to see what Jagex does with PvP gear, as gear like Corrupted Dragon (the highest tier armor for free players), brawling gloves, and ancient warrior equipment is only obtainable through random drops from other players.
Quest Online has been talking for a few months now about bringing player vs player combat to Alganon, and has recently laid out their plans for the next few months on how exactly this will work. Starting foremost, Alganon will see the addition of open world PvP, allowing flagged players from opposite factions to fight one another anywhere. Additionally, consensual PvP has been added in the form of dueling, non lethal. The next phase will introduce towers and keeps, ala Warhammer Online, into the world for the two factions to fight over. Finally, Alganon is looking to bring in instanced battlegrounds, ala a whole lot of MMOs.
Suffice to say, Player Vs Player, especially that on the keep/tower/instance level, requires players which Alganon, also suffice to say, does not have. As much as I love Alganon and praise it here on MMO Fallout, I fully acknowledge that given how difficult it is to get a conversation going on Alganon, getting a duel or a war going will be next to impossible. I hear Quest Online is going to have some sort of marketing campaign (Not that there’s much better marketing than an article on the MMO Fallouts, right?), but right now the game is for all intent and purpose…single player.
Also, is Alganon trying to be more like Warhammer Online? In the November newsletter, not only have they announced a keep system (capturing towers and keeps, to rush in and kill the keep leader). I brushed this off until I saw the plans to introduce a renown points system that gives access to more powerful PvP weapons and armor. Renown? Keeps? You cunning devils, Quest Online, you had them thinking the whole time that Alganon was pulling from WoW, when in fact it was pulling from WAR!
Of course Alganon does have one up on WAR, for starters it’s free to play, no subscription required.
More on Alganon as it appears. Until then, make sure you’ve paid your tithes to Tzeentch…
It was one month ago that Champions Online launched to the waiting crowd, the first in our Mega September that saw a number of new titles launch, old titles receive expansion packs, and an oldie hit its twelfth birthday. It is one month after an MMO launches that the honeymoon is over, as is the free month of membership included in the game, and the true players are separated from those who just stuck around because they had the free month.
MMO Fallout 