BrassFactory Posted Mar 20, 2013, 5:38 am	It was discussed in another topic not long ago, but I thought it was a great idea. I also played a board game recently (Eclipse) that made battles often as rewarding for the loser as the winner. I'd like to see powerful incentives for PvP based on faction. If fighting PvP against a factions enemies raised your rep even when losing, and if rep actually did something, maybe folks would care less if they lost cars or lives.
Groove Champion Posted Mar 20, 2013, 10:50 am	Quote: maybe folks would care less if they lost cars or lives That is the crux of Dark Wind's many issues: they never will 'care less', regardless of what changes you introduce. That's just the sort of gamers DW attracts: the ones that like success more than they like challenge.
*Tinker* Posted Mar 20, 2013, 10:52 am	BrassFactory said: I also played a board game recently (Eclipse) that made battles often as rewarding for the loser as the winner. Can you tell us a litle more about what was so good, and how it could be applied to this game? Quote: I'd like to see powerful incentives for PvP based on faction.  If fighting PvP against a factions enemies raised your rep even when losing, and if rep actually did something, maybe folks would care less if they lost cars or lives. You the player have a lot more risk then the hordes of mindless AI, so if you so chooses to PvP an enemy faction controlled by another player since you are not really in the same league as the AI, you should get more benefits for just being at risk of loosing more? Is that the reasoning?
BrassFactory Posted Mar 20, 2013, 2:02 pm	Eclipse is a science fiction game which is won based on victory points. Players have different races that get victory points in different ways. Warlike ones get victory points simply for engaging in battles. They get more if they win, but it's often to their benefit to fight losing battles. There's still a strategic cost to losing (loss of equipment and territory) but it's generally worth it. I'm not saying you somehow SHOULD get more benefits in PvP because of the risk. That's probably true, I suppose. What I'm saying is that players make more interesting opponents than AI. So if the game can encourage PvP it will be more fun. In my opinion, the main reason PvP isn't popular is because it is perceived as a losing proposition by most players. Why seek a fight with (insert name of 3 year+ player) when I know he'll drop me with his 200 skill, 12 spec, gunners? Not to mention his detailed knowledge of terrain benefits, maps, game oddities, etc.?
BrassFactory Posted Mar 20, 2013, 2:07 pm	If Sam can change the equation, then players could replace AI more. I also think basing PvP on faction makes it more interesting. Fighting Joel seems fake and potentially unfriendly. Fighting Bastilled because he's a commie and I'm a merchant seems cool. Give me a substantial boost in rep with my faction for being willing to fight and die on their behalf. Make the rep boost actually have strong in game effects. Now you might PERSUADE more people to engage in PvP rather than FORCE them, as is sometimes suggested.
BrassFactory Posted Mar 20, 2013, 2:15 pm	Or the benefit could be Faction Points, like hero points, but usable at a Faction run store that sells items not available in stores. The faction stores could all sell some hard to get items and some specialty items. Anarchists could has spikes and rams. Take them out of the other stores. Now you've also created more of a player economy. Privateers and Raiders could have v8s. Civs could have lasers (for lots of points)
Blackwill Posted Mar 20, 2013, 2:44 pm	The most rewarding experiences in DW, for me, are pitted battles between players. Players bring a fluidity and uncertainty to the encounter (even something as simple as a race), which the AI cannot match. And, unless you are one of the (un)lucky few who have only ever encountered AI in Town events or the Wilderness, then you HAVE engaged in PvP, already. It is an integral and pervasive part of the game. And, I would certainly like my Faction membership to mean something "real" in the game, as well, other than the occasional engine tune-up or "found ammo" during Town events. Giving DRM faction members (players) the ability to sabotage another players' vehicle(s) would be great (and costly, and rightfully so), especially if that player is a member of an "enemy" faction. Perhaps Merchants could gain a small percentage of all sales in their Home town (using a number of Hero Points, and for a limited time), or coerce the local AI merchants to inflate prices for "enemy" factions. Civs could petition the town Militia to "bar" certain factions from entering Civ-controlled towns (forced gates encounters). Each of these benefits would be based upon Faction standing...the more rep you have in the faction, the more you are able to control how it operates. Inflicting harm (real or financial) against an enemy faction would increase your rep, for instance, and bestow upon you a small increase in your ability to manipulate the Faction's operations in your local area. Assisting allied or friendly factions would have the same effect (A Merchant lowering prices for a Civ, for example). Just some ideas I had before work....
*Splash* Posted Mar 20, 2013, 6:18 pm	I would also love it if there were more of a risk/reward system set up and tied into the factions. As it is, factions are pretty much useless, or certainly not as powerful/importaint as they should be. And PvP is all risk, no reward. I finally learned to stay away from it, knowing I have two options: 1.)Bring crappy gangers/equipment and lose every time, or 2.) Bring my best stuff and people and still get beat by gangs who wouldn't even hire my best gangers and don't flinch when they lose the equipment I just did. After dealing with those two choices time after time, I'm resigned to not participating until I get better people/stuff. Everyone says, "Oh, but PvP is so fun." Maybe it's fun for you; then again, I'm sure the kid stealing lunch money from the class runt every day also has a good time. Why wouldn't he want to continue having that kind of "fun?" That said, having a reason to PvP based on factions would certainly make it more appealing, and I'd be much more likely to risk gangers and equipment. If I can't win anyway, I'd still like to get something out of PvP; otherwise, I see no point to it.
*Bastille* Posted Mar 21, 2013, 12:42 am	PvP with low skill characters is lots of fun, even if you don't win. Losing is often as much fun in pvp as winning (that or Im just better at losing) you can often get boosts for camp even if you lose. I lost to dodger in SCL once, but ended up with just as much boost as him for camp.. heh, I killed his def 4 with a lucky crossbow bolt to the neck. Tying some of these things work into factions would be good. Merchants automatically receive a crossbow to the neck.
*Tinker* Posted Mar 21, 2013, 5:37 pm	Blackwill said: The most rewarding experiences in DW, for me, are pitted battles between players.  Players bring a fluidity and uncertainty to the encounter (even something as simple as a race), which the AI cannot match.  And, unless you are one of the (un)lucky few who have only ever encountered AI in Town events or the Wilderness, then you HAVE engaged in PvP, already.  It is an integral and pervasive part of the game.  And, I would certainly like my Faction membership to mean something "real" in the game, as well, other than the occasional engine tune-up or "found ammo" during Town events. Giving DRM faction members (players) the ability to sabotage another players' vehicle(s) would be great (and costly, and rightfully so), especially if that player is a member of an "enemy" faction. Perhaps Merchants could gain a small percentage of all sales in their Home town (using a number of Hero Points, and for a limited time), or coerce the local AI merchants to inflate prices for "enemy" factions. Civs could petition the town Militia to "bar" certain factions from entering Civ-controlled towns (forced gates encounters). Each of these benefits would be based upon Faction standing...the more rep you have in the faction, the more you are able to control how it operates.  Inflicting harm (real or financial) against an enemy faction would increase your rep, for instance, and bestow upon you a small increase in your ability to manipulate the Faction's operations in your local area. Assisting allied or friendly factions would have the same effect (A Merchant lowering prices for a Civ, for example). Just some ideas I had before work.... Nice ideas
Vroomhoff Posted Mar 21, 2013, 8:51 pm	Blackwill said: The most rewarding experiences in DW, for me, are pitted battles between players. DW currently has a "mature crowd". However, a fully PVP motivated environment could bring a "Heroes of Newerth" type crowd, where players curse at each other and are generally unhappy to lose to their opponents. I don't think changing the direction of DW to be more PVP oriented is a good thing. I agree that it should be an option, but it should not become the "preferred way to play". You might get more from this discussion by attempting to add value to the current PVP options - SCL, "raiding", death racing, camp raiding, etc.
Blackwill Posted Mar 21, 2013, 9:22 pm	Actually, I rather think we need more PvP options than the standard fare we currently enjoy. The opening up of Shantyville should provide a lot more of those options for us.
Joel Autobaun Posted Mar 22, 2013, 4:44 am	It's a good step.(shanty) I personally think it's not necessary for the name calling during pvp events or intercepts for that matter (though I do understand the desire).
Blackwill Posted Mar 22, 2013, 5:36 am	Depends on the circumstances, Joel I have been in CoE events where one of my regular compatriots fired on me while I was trying to take out another player...a player we BOTH knew had to be taken out. I did summon up a few choice words for him, but it was mostly (mostly) in jest. But, you are right...for the "most part" the name calling is extraneous. I try to use profanity and vitriol in the forums only
FireFly Posted Mar 22, 2013, 5:57 am	Anyone remember how much pvp actually happened back when shanty was open? No? Neither do I.
*sam* Posted Mar 22, 2013, 11:02 am	There is certainly no simple solution to pvp, that much I have learned over the years here. Some facts: (1) there is a lot to lose and potentially little to gain by engaging in pvp. This can be rebalanced, and indeed over the years substantial attempts (largely unsuccessful) have been made to do that (2) a substantial percentage of DW players do not want to engage in pvp, for several different reasons, only some of which are related to the little-to-gain argument. These people will never want to engage in pvp under any circumstances, and I'm not going to force them to (3) many people find combats against humans much more challenging and fun These are perhaps the main 3 things that need to be borne in mind by any pvp rule changes. So, it may be possible for example to do some faction-based rewards (nice idea, BTW!) but perhaps only involving certain factions - that way, anti-pvp players simply have to avoid joining those factions.
PvtParty Posted Mar 22, 2013, 12:22 pm	My main reason for not wanting PvP is I often play (scouting or courier missions) while cooking my evening meal, with the knowledge I can leave it for 4 hours should cooking complete before the mission. If there was some way to postpone a PvP encounter to a mutually acceptable time (for both players) I would be more inclined to give it a try.
BrassFactory Posted Mar 22, 2013, 1:40 pm	SCL is for you.
musashi_san Posted Mar 22, 2013, 2:42 pm	BrassFactory said: SCL is for you. yep. and yeah, i think for most people below the really hard core level of involvement, the time issue is the main problem with unscheduled pvp.
23Baker27 Posted Mar 22, 2013, 6:22 pm	musashi_san said: BrassFactory said: SCL is for you. yep. and yeah, i think for most people below the really hard core level of involvement, the time issue is the main problem with unscheduled pvp. This. Very well put. I'm not opposed to it, but I don't have a lot of time for PVP. If factions: A. gained you access to some items, and restricted access to others. (Say raiders/privateers get access to weapons, civs/merchants get access to engines...etc. And by access I mean chance to buy, or chance to buy at a lower price, chance at rares..) B. gained you rep/favor or loss of rep/favor in towns more closely aligned with certain factions(tie this to NPC's found around a town. If players are farming the crap out of traders outside of GW, then GW should shift it's alignment/population of NPC's towards raiders/privateers reflecting their dominance of that area) C. were not allowed to be in camp together. If player A sets up a camp, and he's a commie, everyone in that camp should be a commie, or someone closely aligned with the Red faction, That more than anything else seems like common sense. D. had actual impact on the courier/assassination/escort missions available and their risk/reward. Say I'm associated with the merchant faction, I should be getting better prices and have more access to varying courier-type contracts. If I'm a privateer, I should get a decent bump to assassination missions, that sort of thing. None of these options would necessarily increase faction PVP, but they would give factions more depth, at the very least. It would also create a more fluid environment regarding towns and who populate/control them.
Joel Autobaun Posted Mar 23, 2013, 9:16 pm	There is plenty of incentive to PvP for Leagues/town events/camp war. There is no incentive to wilderness intercept PvP - it was always a tool to express displeasure with another player.
BrassFactory Posted Mar 23, 2013, 9:29 pm	And I guess that's ok. But currently factions are just fluff. You can certainly make faction more important without involving PvP, but why not create an incentive for wilderness PvP that would make BOTH participants enjoy it?
Joel Autobaun Posted Mar 23, 2013, 9:43 pm	BrassFactory said: You can certainly make faction more important without involving PvP, but why not create an incentive for wilderness PvP that would make BOTH participants enjoy it? Give it a shot, but every attempt to give wilderness PvP incentives resulted in carebears exploiting the rewards.
*Tinker* Posted Mar 23, 2013, 11:15 pm	*sam* said: These are perhaps the main 3 things that need to be borne in mind by any pvp rule changes. So, it may be possible for example to do some faction-based rewards (nice idea, BTW!) but perhaps only involving certain factions - that way, anti-pvp players simply have to avoid joining those factions. I'm confused are these open pvp faction overriding non-flaged pvpers? we already have flags, but they would be a sort of for every-day things until  they joined the right (or wrong) faction which would open them up to their faction enemies, regardless of their flag setting? I guess if you wanted to let them have a safe back door, the renegade faction would be a good one?
Blackwill Posted Apr 5, 2013, 4:09 pm	Is "Renegade" an actual faction, or does it simply imply a lack of affiliation with any of the official factions? If the latter is the case, It would seem to me prudent to make all Renegades open to attack by any faction... but that could be problematic, as all new players begin their DW lives as Renegades.
BrassFactory Posted Apr 9, 2013, 4:15 pm	What I'd propose would be an increase in chances of skill ups and faction rep for PvP between players based on the faction of the players fighting. Simple, hurts nobody, and encourages role playing. For instance: if your faction hates the faction you are PvPing against, increase skill up chance and faction change (both positive and negative) by 50%. If they are just 'distrust'ed then it's 10%. Implement it anywhere it's easy to code.