And EverQuest 2 joins the fray by implementing a PvP system...
SOE says: "There will be two new, separate PvP Ruleset servers to begin with. One will most likely be Exchange-Enabled, the other will not. We will have the ability to add more of either kind when the need arises."
Prognosticator says: Good, distinct servers is the only way to go unless the PvP system is designed to de-trivalize (is that a word?) player battles. See Lineage 2 for a system where all servers are PvP and it does not disrupt the PvE play in any overbearing negative way. The exchanged-enabled comments gave me quite a chuckle. I'm on the same side of the exchange debate as Aggro Me, who coincidentally posted a fantastic commentary on this topic yesterday.
SOE Says: "One huge concern is that no one wants PvP balance to ever impact PvE balance. There will not be PvE combat nerfs because of PvP. We have separate controls for what goes on in PvP. Since this is a piece that we knew we'd need no matter which direction we went, this is something we've already implemented."
Prognosticator says: Bravo! This was good planning. I'm surprised it hasn't been a standard implementation in other systems as a solution to PvP and PvE tuning.
SOE Says: "This is strict good vs. evil. You're only grouping with others of your alignment, and opposing aligned PCs highlight to you the same way that NPC encounters would. If you're betraying or don't have a city to call home, you're an Exile, and a target for everyone. PvP will not be restricted to specific zones. It will take place all across the world of EverQuest II. Fight in dungeons, fight out in the wilds, defend your town, or attack the opposing side.
EQ2 will be introducing the concept of Honorable, Neutral, and Dishonorable victories. Honorable victories are where the rewards lie."
Prognosticator says: Seems obvious. For more information, see World of Warcraft. I wonder what constitutes a neutral victory?
SOE Says: "The first of the rewards for defeating your city's enemies include: Status and Standing with your PvP faction. Additionally, we would like to include adventure experience rewards. While exceptionally difficult, it would be theoretically possible to level up purely by defeating other players in combat. This is a concept that we are working hard to be able to include, and hope that we are able to prevent friend-farming enough to where it is a concept that can see the light of day. Once you earn PvP standing, you can buy valuable and useful items from your faction's merchants. This is real, desirable equipment, not just tokens, trophies, and trinkets, though we will be trying to include these as well for flavor. You wouldn't be able to dress yourself head to toe in them, though, as Adventuring and Crafting still play an important role in this ruleset."
Prognosticator says: One obvious histroical gap in PvP play is that the reward is usually very small or nonexistent. Sony is aiming to fix this glaring omission. If a given PvP system works (read: is balanced) there is no reason to demotivate the use of it through lack of a viable reward system. WoW has a fairly solid PvP system, and yet, without the battleground system , the rewards for everyday PvP activity simply aren't there. If Sony successfully implements a rewarding PvP system they will find a strong cadre of "leet1 gankers2" supporting their efforts. Not all PvP systems are equal, but many are strikingly similar in their strengths and weaknesses. EQ2 will be "more equal" than the others if the system properly rewards PvP prowess.
1Leet
> - Leet, usually written as "1337" in Leetspeak, is an online culture and/or attitude, as well as a language code, among the Internet population. The word itself is derived phonetically from the word "elite", and is a cipher, or cryptic form of spelling replacing letters with numbers, symbols, and other letters that look or sound alike. Leetspeak was first used on Bulletin Board Systems, and then later adopted by users of Online Multiplayer Games and other Internet communities.
2Ganked - To be attacked and/or killed by another player or group of players; implies the battle was extremely unfair, such as the hostile players being of much higher level than yourself.
|
RSS - Blog/Articles