Add PVP Level-Up Required Missions to the Game

[Strake]

If this has already been proposed, discussed and discarded, I apologize.

Currently, any player can level up by farming NPC missions. I'd like to see an additional level up mechanic added to the game that requires one-on-one PVP battles at each rank. These battles could be creatively implemented where the player is sent on a mission to intercept another player of the same rank with a similar ship and they have a PVP battle. The winner gets PVP credit toward leveling up. The loser has to try again.

Upside to this idea: more PVP, better players, more excitement in the OW.

Downside: takes longer to level up, some players won't like the PVP, others I haven't thought of.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Strake

[victor]

Notnhing personal, mate, but I know it would have been just a matter of time before that some wtfomgpwnzuber (a.k.a. "hardcore") pvp player would have started playing the old "more pvp" song, forgetting that - in a player driven economy - the average carebear (who is not a fan of PVP and prefers grinding missions) is usually who builds the ships PVPers use to happily sink each other.

Edited March 17, 2016 by victor

[Arbour]

Notnhing personal, mate, but I know it would have been just a matter of time before that some wtfomgpwnzuber (a.k.a. "hardcore") pvp player would have started playing the old "more pvp" song, forgetting that - in a player driven economy - the average carebear (who is not a fan of PVP and prefers grinding missions) is usually who builds the ships PVPers use to happily sink each other.

 

There are PvE servers for that.  If people want to just grind missions and not fight other players, they have a place.  The problem with the PvP servers is that PvE players are outleveling PvP players, allowing them to take ports with 3rd and 1st rates when they don't even know how to use manual sails.  Doing PvP on a PvP server in a PvP game should be rewarded, but currently it isn't.  

[victor]

The fact is tant the real PVP in a RvR and conquest game is ... is RvR and conquest, not zerg and skirmish. This means that in a RvR conquest perspective, also in a PVP server crafters (and then carebears) are much more important then the casual zergers.

 

But I realize that's the hardest part of the lesson for the so called "hardcore" PVPers

Edited March 17, 2016 by victor

[Siegfried]

No please.

 

If a player reach admiral rank without know manual sail his ship it's only his problem.

 

And force PvE players to play PvP playing stile will not work.

[Ampen]

From what I've experienced, PvP gives more XP and as such is a quicker way to level for those who like it. I think that's a pretty good way going about this.

[Nalyd]

There are PvE servers for that.  If people want to just grind missions and not fight other players, they have a place.  The problem with the PvP servers is that PvE players are outleveling PvP players, allowing them to take ports with 3rd and 1st rates when they don't even know how to use manual sails.  Doing PvP on a PvP server in a PvP game should be rewarded, but currently it isn't.  

 

Because obviously, people who are more into PvE but still want to have access to PvP mechanics every now and then doesn't exist. Apparently you are either 100% hardcore PvP or 100% PvE.

About the PvP reward, you earn a shitload more doing that than in PvE. It's just a high risk, high reward thing.

And really, if your concern is the PvP, you should ask for the dev to add PvP missions instead of trying to force your playstyle on others

[Arbour]

Because obviously, people who are more into PvE but still want to have access to PvP mechanics every now and then doesn't exist. Apparently you are either 100% hardcore PvP or 100% PvE.

About the PvP reward, you earn a shitload more doing that than in PvE. It's just a high risk, high reward thing.

And really, if your concern is the PvP, you should ask for the dev to add PvP missions instead of trying to force your playstyle on others

 

My understanding is that is what the OP is suggesting.  PvP missions, not eliminating PvE. 

[Ampen]

My understanding is that is what the OP is suggesting.  PvP missions, not eliminating PvE. 

 

His suggestion actually says "requires one-on-one PVP battles at each rank.", so it would be a mandatory thing to level up.

[Arbour]

So over the course of the entire ranking process, the OP is suggesting that to get to rank 10, you have to win 9 battles in PvP.  I really don't see the harm in that or how it is forcing players to play a different style than how they want.  It's 9 battles over the course of 100s.  It just makes the ranks actually meaningful, and makes leveling more of an accomplishment.  They can even be instanced mission so you don't have to sail across the map to find them.  If you get stuck at a level cause you can't win a fight, then do you really deserve to rank up over others?  Will it discourage players and cause them to quit, or will they just want to work harder and be better that the game?  I think the latter is more the case with gamers.   

[Strake]

So over the course of the entire ranking process, the OP is suggesting that to get to rank 10, you have to win 9 battles in PvP.  I really don't see the harm in that or how it is forcing players to play a different style than how they want.  It's 9 battles over the course of 100s.  It just makes the ranks actually meaningful, and makes leveling more of an accomplishment.  They can even be instanced mission so you don't have to sail across the map to find them.  If you get stuck at a level cause you can't win a fight, then do you really deserve to rank up over others?  Will it discourage players and cause them to quit, or will they just want to work harder and be better that the game?  I think the latter is more the case with gamers.

Yes. This is what I had in mind with the original post, but maybe its too drastic. Too many players fear PvP. Maybe if the PvP level-up contest was anonymous with no chat, that would help.

[DeRuyter]

Something similar was attempted prior to EA. You had to kill a certain number of ships with a certain type of ship at each rank to advance. Could have been PVE or PVP though. This honor kill requirement was dropped.

 

See this thread for example:

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/7571-honor-kill-clarification/?hl=honor+kills#entry144015

[Strake]

Something similar was attempted prior to EA. You had to kill a certain number of ships with a certain type of ship at each rank to advance. Could have been PVE or PVP though. This honor kill requirement was dropped.

 

See this thread for example:

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/7571-honor-kill-clarification/?hl=honor+kills#entry144015

I can see why it was dropped - way too complicated.

[xAzDKr]

Huge -1, similar to the system that was referred to above and forces people to play the game a certain way, some people prefer to grind PVE on PVP servers and that's how they want to play the game, there's nothing wrong with that. Not to mention, putting PVP requirements in will punish those who play on less populated servers. 

Edited March 17, 2016 by xAzDKr

[Arbour]

I can see why it was dropped - way too complicated.

 

Yea, I looked at the system they had in that thread and how confusing it was.  But it doesn't need to be that confusing.  Simple matchmaking with equal level ships and captains is much simpler.  Did you win? You advance.  Did you lose?  Try again.  he only potential downside is putting this system on low population servers.  This the player base dropping like it is, it will be even more difficult.  

 

But you are right, people seem to be too afraid of the potential of losing a virtual ship that it is just too much to handle.  I would understand it if you lost a battle you were never able to play again, but with the lose mechanics in place now, losing is not a big deal at all.  Other games out there encourage fighting, this one seems to not, and that is backed up by very vocal members of the community.  It doesn't make any sense to me.  

[312_JS]

His suggestion actually says "requires one-on-one PVP battles at each rank.", so it would be a mandatory thing to level up.

 

The OP is just an idea to brainstorm about, not a final concept..

 

[Ampen]

Look, if some players want more PvP (since that's from where I see this coming, I doubt it's out of concern of people not doing PvP to "miss out" on something spectacular) the solution would be finding ways so that more players tried this game in my opinion. Trying to implement mechanics that will in effect cap your progress unless you PvP might make more players prone to PvP in the future, but I'm pretty damn certain it will make others drop out.

As such it's a horrible idea in my opinion, since it's my firm belief it will reduce player retention.

Player retention should be the main focus, since that's what will make or break this game as I see it considering it's a niche game.

[Strake]

Look, if some players want more PvP (since that's from where I see this coming, I doubt it's out of concern of people not doing PvP to "miss out" on something spectacular) the solution would be finding ways so that more players tried this game in my opinion. Trying to implement mechanics that will in effect cap your progress unless you PvP might make more players prone to PvP in the future, but I'm pretty damn certain it will make others drop out.

As such it's a horrible idea in my opinion, since it's my firm belief it will reduce player retention.

Player retention should be the main focus, since that's what will make or break this game as I see it considering it's a niche game.

So it looks like forcing PvP on players is like making your kids eat broccoli. Needs to happen voluntarily.

[Capt. Rice]

I think there should be a healthy bit of both ..not one or the other.