Forums » Suggestions
Well i don't know how this would work out but i saw a post detailing the pvp system which EQ2 is going to impliment in hte nearbye future and I don't know but it seemed like an interesting idea.
The change won't deal much difference to most if not any of our actions in most cases (pirates won't care if they lose faction or are known as being bastids, they are criminals after all), or so i think, but it could still be nice. Heck the rewards and disrewards could even tie in with bounties and the ability to set bounties.
It would however work perfectly if we finally get some opposing factions (like itani - serco, UIT - corvus, orion - Axia, etc...)
Honorable Kills: Any kill of the opposing alignment that was first engaged while the target had greater than 80% health. The first group or player that engaged will receive experience, status, and faction.
Neutral Kills: Any kill of the opposing alignment that was first engaged while the target had greater than 50% health. Neutral kills result in moderate faction gain, but do not reward experience or status.
Dishonorable Kills: Any kill of the opposing alignment that was first engaged while the target had less than 50% health. Dishonorable kills result in a loss of faction with both your alignment and the opposing alignment. Losing enough faction will cause you to fall out of favor with your alignment, and will restrict or remove any access to the rewards system.
The Kill List: Honorably killing another player will place them on a list tied to your character, designed to reduce friend farming and griefing. Any Honorable subsequent kill of the same player will result in a neutral kill until you have killed 10 other players. Neutral and Dishonorable kills have no effect on the list.
Like i said, I don't really know if it will be usefull or even possible for vendetta seeing that it will need close damagemoderating, but it did seem like an interesting idea. Especially seeing that we have so many factions which could give a plethora of choices and options. And in an rpg choices are a good thing.
The change won't deal much difference to most if not any of our actions in most cases (pirates won't care if they lose faction or are known as being bastids, they are criminals after all), or so i think, but it could still be nice. Heck the rewards and disrewards could even tie in with bounties and the ability to set bounties.
It would however work perfectly if we finally get some opposing factions (like itani - serco, UIT - corvus, orion - Axia, etc...)
Honorable Kills: Any kill of the opposing alignment that was first engaged while the target had greater than 80% health. The first group or player that engaged will receive experience, status, and faction.
Neutral Kills: Any kill of the opposing alignment that was first engaged while the target had greater than 50% health. Neutral kills result in moderate faction gain, but do not reward experience or status.
Dishonorable Kills: Any kill of the opposing alignment that was first engaged while the target had less than 50% health. Dishonorable kills result in a loss of faction with both your alignment and the opposing alignment. Losing enough faction will cause you to fall out of favor with your alignment, and will restrict or remove any access to the rewards system.
The Kill List: Honorably killing another player will place them on a list tied to your character, designed to reduce friend farming and griefing. Any Honorable subsequent kill of the same player will result in a neutral kill until you have killed 10 other players. Neutral and Dishonorable kills have no effect on the list.
Like i said, I don't really know if it will be usefull or even possible for vendetta seeing that it will need close damagemoderating, but it did seem like an interesting idea. Especially seeing that we have so many factions which could give a plethora of choices and options. And in an rpg choices are a good thing.
well, I don't really mind, except that the dishonorable kill faction loss could easily be exploited.
how so?
You bump yourself into a roid down to 49% and then go harass people?
Well wouldn't that be solved by the word engaging. Meaning ig you are the defender the unhonourable rule has no bearing on it?
at least its liek that that i would understand it.
at least its liek that that i would understand it.
If the player harassing you fires first, misses, and keeps on firing, will you sit still and wait for her/him to hit you, or will you take evasive action and end the threat, therefore possibly 'drawing first blood', and thus 'engaging' the opponent? Or how else would you determine who engaged who?
How about reserving a specialized hail as notification that you are engaging.
For example, Mogul Velaio actually does this, but it's a manual and unaccounted-for process. I have 4 basic hail binds I've made. They are (simplified):
0 = Have a safe voyage
1 = What are your intentions?
2 = Cease your actions or you will be fire upon.
3 = You will pay for your actions.
I use these routinely, including in B8, to signal my intentions. For example, when I use the '1' hail, I will not fire until opponent takes attacking positions or responds to hail (either with a /msg reply or firing a shot across my bow). I've had a surprisingly good response to those hails. Most people, sercos included, played along.
The standard hail message ('h) could have something along the line of my '3' bind. Say, a "kill" ('k') hail.
If you flag someone with that hail and he doesn't answer, it becomes a "neutral kill". If opponent responds with same kill hail, whoever gets to win the combat gets a honorable kill point (other, probably an honorable death). If neither kill-hailed, then the winner of combat gets a dishonorable kill while other gains honorable death.
For example, Mogul Velaio actually does this, but it's a manual and unaccounted-for process. I have 4 basic hail binds I've made. They are (simplified):
0 = Have a safe voyage
1 = What are your intentions?
2 = Cease your actions or you will be fire upon.
3 = You will pay for your actions.
I use these routinely, including in B8, to signal my intentions. For example, when I use the '1' hail, I will not fire until opponent takes attacking positions or responds to hail (either with a /msg reply or firing a shot across my bow). I've had a surprisingly good response to those hails. Most people, sercos included, played along.
The standard hail message ('h) could have something along the line of my '3' bind. Say, a "kill" ('k') hail.
If you flag someone with that hail and he doesn't answer, it becomes a "neutral kill". If opponent responds with same kill hail, whoever gets to win the combat gets a honorable kill point (other, probably an honorable death). If neither kill-hailed, then the winner of combat gets a dishonorable kill while other gains honorable death.
Sounds horribly exploitable to me, specially with people like zamzx around. I prefer the combat system as it is right now. You want a system-enforced guarantee of "honorable PvP", go play EverCrap 2.
Jex, why should we not have that option?
you have the option of non consensual pvp, so why shouldn't there be the option of honourable pvp.
it would just increase the rp element from the game. If you rp a criminal then you wouldn't care for that so called honorable play or even the hails and just shoot and take the disadvantages with it. Heck as a criminal you would even try to get as many unhonourable kills as possible although you will get hunted by everybody, have bounties on you set by all the factions on a near daily manor.
And on top of that it would also give a way for the honourable criminals to be known and easier distinquished for newbies from the scum of the earth.
While for the people getting good 'statusses' they would be able to parttake in catch the criminal hunts, or bountyhunts or... Maybe even as a limit in certain high reward escort missions. As for the criminals, it would be a requisite for certain high level pirate missions.
Heck this type of pvp would punish Redenginebot's way of play but not make him have to do this way of play, the consequences will just be the same as for any criminal.
like i said its an idea with merits not stopping any playstyle, giving as well status to the heroes as to the villains.
you have the option of non consensual pvp, so why shouldn't there be the option of honourable pvp.
it would just increase the rp element from the game. If you rp a criminal then you wouldn't care for that so called honorable play or even the hails and just shoot and take the disadvantages with it. Heck as a criminal you would even try to get as many unhonourable kills as possible although you will get hunted by everybody, have bounties on you set by all the factions on a near daily manor.
And on top of that it would also give a way for the honourable criminals to be known and easier distinquished for newbies from the scum of the earth.
While for the people getting good 'statusses' they would be able to parttake in catch the criminal hunts, or bountyhunts or... Maybe even as a limit in certain high reward escort missions. As for the criminals, it would be a requisite for certain high level pirate missions.
Heck this type of pvp would punish Redenginebot's way of play but not make him have to do this way of play, the consequences will just be the same as for any criminal.
like i said its an idea with merits not stopping any playstyle, giving as well status to the heroes as to the villains.
renegade, the combat system isn't going to change. such a system is rediculously exploitable in VO for exactly the reason that toshiro cites.
EQ2 will be able to make it work because its point and click combat, there is a distinct and direct log of WHO INITIATED THE FIGHT.
there is no need to punish the criminals, the faction system allready does this to a point, and i'd rathar just fix the faction system we have to be a bit more intelligent* than mess with trying to add all this extra stuff.
and renegade, honor is defined by the circumstances of each person, but making 'honorable PvP' and tying missions into it effectively removes options from some players, especially with how exploitable it would be in VO. It's the same reason that damaging people is the only way the defense bots are triggered around a station.
* i've got an old thread on reputation here:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/10089
most of the main points are still viable.
EQ2 will be able to make it work because its point and click combat, there is a distinct and direct log of WHO INITIATED THE FIGHT.
there is no need to punish the criminals, the faction system allready does this to a point, and i'd rathar just fix the faction system we have to be a bit more intelligent* than mess with trying to add all this extra stuff.
and renegade, honor is defined by the circumstances of each person, but making 'honorable PvP' and tying missions into it effectively removes options from some players, especially with how exploitable it would be in VO. It's the same reason that damaging people is the only way the defense bots are triggered around a station.
* i've got an old thread on reputation here:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/10089
most of the main points are still viable.
well mouser gave a nice fix for that so called problem so i don't see in why it couldn't be added.
not to mention that in vendetta you point and click as well, you target someone and click fire button. Would that not be already a decent amount of engaging. The only difference between a regular rpg and vendetta is that the hittingchance is not based on a dieroll but on actual skill/luck. But still that action of targetting and clicking the firebutton, or just hitting the firebutton within a certain radius of a player (smller version of the radarrange perhaps, possibly 200m if not using the targetoption) can already be considered as engaging. So in effect i don't see a problem in that definition...
Still, factions is already a start of limiting certain choices with players. But any rpg game has choices and will lock out certain parts of the game dependent on your choices. Otherwise you aren't playing the role of a certain character but just powergaming... ergo : a cleric that chooses to focus on healing his companions in stea dof debuffing them... in vendetta a tradr that choses to solely focus on exploiting a miningbase in contradiction to a trader that prefers to sell self made items. You can't make every aspect open to everybody, it would defy the point of creating different roles and even different nations and factions. Flying as a trader for axia should feel different then flying one for orion or even serco...
Anyway my point was not to solely 'punish' the 'criminals' but to also give them some sort of goal to work for, or a role to play... you can be a dishonourable criminal that will get a bounty practically every day and be chased from point x in sector y to point z in sector M on a daily basis by bots, players, etc... I know for a fact that some people will love that. I also know that some poeple would love to be a criminal but be known as a honourable one in their fights. This would still give them that option. Seeing that honourable or not honourable will be a status dependent on your habuts of fighting. But criminal or not will be dependent on your factionrating with the factions.
And this role that you play will open up different parts of soem missions, heck they might even give you the same mission but ask of you to solve it in a different way. For example the honourable criminal should just intercept them without killing them while the unhonourable one should intercept the same poeple but not leave a single soul alive... But whatever it is it would diversify all the missions based on different flags on which the missioncreator can then respond.
Like I said, i found it an interesting way to further limit options and define roles, add specialisations and futher diversify some options. But nowhre did i ask for the combatsystem to change... you will still be able to shoot each other as we do now, only diffrence will be that picking on people that are weakened by a previous fight will be judged differently from picking on someone who is at full health.
PS; maybe the triggering of defense bots should change to actually triggering on anybody firing within the zone or even disabling all weapons within that zone... while shots fired into the general direction of the station will be absorped and nullified (if you want an explanation for that just state that its some sort of shielding). Heck maybe the size of the station (well importance) will indicate the size of this shield. If its a major hub, it will have a spehrre of 6 km, while if it is just an outpost it has a sphere of maybe 500m, while the corvus station wouldn't care one bit and have a sphere of 15m (so to stop weapons from damaging the station :D). But i'm going on a tangent here.
not to mention that in vendetta you point and click as well, you target someone and click fire button. Would that not be already a decent amount of engaging. The only difference between a regular rpg and vendetta is that the hittingchance is not based on a dieroll but on actual skill/luck. But still that action of targetting and clicking the firebutton, or just hitting the firebutton within a certain radius of a player (smller version of the radarrange perhaps, possibly 200m if not using the targetoption) can already be considered as engaging. So in effect i don't see a problem in that definition...
Still, factions is already a start of limiting certain choices with players. But any rpg game has choices and will lock out certain parts of the game dependent on your choices. Otherwise you aren't playing the role of a certain character but just powergaming... ergo : a cleric that chooses to focus on healing his companions in stea dof debuffing them... in vendetta a tradr that choses to solely focus on exploiting a miningbase in contradiction to a trader that prefers to sell self made items. You can't make every aspect open to everybody, it would defy the point of creating different roles and even different nations and factions. Flying as a trader for axia should feel different then flying one for orion or even serco...
Anyway my point was not to solely 'punish' the 'criminals' but to also give them some sort of goal to work for, or a role to play... you can be a dishonourable criminal that will get a bounty practically every day and be chased from point x in sector y to point z in sector M on a daily basis by bots, players, etc... I know for a fact that some people will love that. I also know that some poeple would love to be a criminal but be known as a honourable one in their fights. This would still give them that option. Seeing that honourable or not honourable will be a status dependent on your habuts of fighting. But criminal or not will be dependent on your factionrating with the factions.
And this role that you play will open up different parts of soem missions, heck they might even give you the same mission but ask of you to solve it in a different way. For example the honourable criminal should just intercept them without killing them while the unhonourable one should intercept the same poeple but not leave a single soul alive... But whatever it is it would diversify all the missions based on different flags on which the missioncreator can then respond.
Like I said, i found it an interesting way to further limit options and define roles, add specialisations and futher diversify some options. But nowhre did i ask for the combatsystem to change... you will still be able to shoot each other as we do now, only diffrence will be that picking on people that are weakened by a previous fight will be judged differently from picking on someone who is at full health.
PS; maybe the triggering of defense bots should change to actually triggering on anybody firing within the zone or even disabling all weapons within that zone... while shots fired into the general direction of the station will be absorped and nullified (if you want an explanation for that just state that its some sort of shielding). Heck maybe the size of the station (well importance) will indicate the size of this shield. If its a major hub, it will have a spehrre of 6 km, while if it is just an outpost it has a sphere of maybe 500m, while the corvus station wouldn't care one bit and have a sphere of 15m (so to stop weapons from damaging the station :D). But i'm going on a tangent here.
Rene and jex, using player names on the forms in a negtive manner calls for deleation.
speeking of negtive manner, put your money where your mouth is, you itani dogs. None of you have had a fight in-game (out of chat, duh) for months. also, Jex, you like others simply are jumping on the bandwagon, someone said I was lame, everyone stands in a circle chanting it without even knowing what is going on. I mean, you should check that kind of thing yourself instead of dissing someone about it.
Gezzz.
speeking of negtive manner, put your money where your mouth is, you itani dogs. None of you have had a fight in-game (out of chat, duh) for months. also, Jex, you like others simply are jumping on the bandwagon, someone said I was lame, everyone stands in a circle chanting it without even knowing what is going on. I mean, you should check that kind of thing yourself instead of dissing someone about it.
Gezzz.
I have been playing with another character for months..., although not as much as i used to do because it was and still has gotten a bit boring.
Well that got changed, hadn't even noticed that i slipped that in...
Not to mention that i haven't been an itani for ages...
Well that got changed, hadn't even noticed that i slipped that in...
Not to mention that i haven't been an itani for ages...
Honorable PvP is Dueling. Everything else should be left as is. Although there does need to be a better faction system in place to handle kills better for npc traders and such. That's coming soon(TM) though, at least the devs are aware of the need for it (I hope).
But still that action of targetting and clicking the firebutton, or just hitting the firebutton within a certain radius of a player (smller version of the radarrange perhaps, possibly 200m if not using the targetoption) can already be considered as engaging. So in effect i don't see a problem in that definition...
sigh, no targeting and firing is NOT the same as starting a fight, nor will the firing within a 200 meter range work.
I pick my opponent, fly up to him without having him targeted, open fire aiming to miss, he responds and shoots me, he has now engaged me.
I fly up to a player who is botting in sedina, I get to within 100 meters of him, he has now 'engaged' me, i return fire with 1 shot to get his attention.
In both cases I damaged myself to 40% before i got there, so he's now started a dishonorable fight. I let him kill me, he gets a counter.
trust me renegade, we've been through ALL the possibilites for determining who started a combat before. point and click means exactly that... there is no way to spoof the system, you HAVE to take an action that the server identifies 100% as an attack on person X. you cant aim to miss, you cant attack nothing as a provocation.
and in regards to mousers suggestion its not a bad idea, but it just wont work.
I dont kill hail, I fly up near a target, I fire to miss, target returns fire, engages me, I allow him to win, bang, honor death for me, dishonor for him.
I have nothing against mission trees being tied to the actions of players, but an honorable combat rating is not a viable way to do it in VO. change the reputation system and make it reputation based.
Make trade convoys that the stations send out function the same as the CtC convoys with regard to reputation, kill them and it counts as monitored for that faction with a small rep hit, then allow players to join the trade convoys for protection if they want to be safer from pirates.
This idea as proposed just isnt viable to vendetta.
sigh, no targeting and firing is NOT the same as starting a fight, nor will the firing within a 200 meter range work.
I pick my opponent, fly up to him without having him targeted, open fire aiming to miss, he responds and shoots me, he has now engaged me.
I fly up to a player who is botting in sedina, I get to within 100 meters of him, he has now 'engaged' me, i return fire with 1 shot to get his attention.
In both cases I damaged myself to 40% before i got there, so he's now started a dishonorable fight. I let him kill me, he gets a counter.
trust me renegade, we've been through ALL the possibilites for determining who started a combat before. point and click means exactly that... there is no way to spoof the system, you HAVE to take an action that the server identifies 100% as an attack on person X. you cant aim to miss, you cant attack nothing as a provocation.
and in regards to mousers suggestion its not a bad idea, but it just wont work.
I dont kill hail, I fly up near a target, I fire to miss, target returns fire, engages me, I allow him to win, bang, honor death for me, dishonor for him.
I have nothing against mission trees being tied to the actions of players, but an honorable combat rating is not a viable way to do it in VO. change the reputation system and make it reputation based.
Make trade convoys that the stations send out function the same as the CtC convoys with regard to reputation, kill them and it counts as monitored for that faction with a small rep hit, then allow players to join the trade convoys for protection if they want to be safer from pirates.
This idea as proposed just isnt viable to vendetta.
Well it was just an idea that i considered to be interesting, ooh well.
Still if somebody targets me and shoots i consider that engaging, even if he misses. (= point and click), so only way how you could make it foolproof was by only being able to shoot when you have someone targetted. But even that can be abused... so forget it, just the idea behind it seemed interesting :(, and i was actually interested in its implimentation.
Still if somebody targets me and shoots i consider that engaging, even if he misses. (= point and click), so only way how you could make it foolproof was by only being able to shoot when you have someone targetted. But even that can be abused... so forget it, just the idea behind it seemed interesting :(, and i was actually interested in its implimentation.
the idea of tying it to missions and stuff is a good one, but we allready have a faction system that can be used for that job (with appropriate tweaks) so no reason to do double work.
'hole said: speeking of negtive manner, put your money where your mouth is, you itani dogs.
OK even though my joystick is broken, I will come ingame to heap death and verbal insults upon zamzx! Ye've been warned!
OK even though my joystick is broken, I will come ingame to heap death and verbal insults upon zamzx! Ye've been warned!
I have to admit, I did not read the whole thread... but
there is nothing honorable about attacking another player outside of a duel.
simple fact. pirating someone, as much a part of the game as it is, is a crime. it is not honorable.
there is nothing honorable about attacking another player outside of a duel.
simple fact. pirating someone, as much a part of the game as it is, is a crime. it is not honorable.
the part that was supposed to be honourable abouyt it is in stead of picking o nte weak, picking on people your own size.
well thats the general idea behind it
well thats the general idea behind it