PDA

View Full Version : Lvl 20 to 40 content PvP/Castles/Relics/Vaults



Danandez
10-10-2009, 08:05 AM
Let me first start out by saying I enjoy the game as is, its lots of fun, and I find myself spending a lot of time playing it. I do however have a suggestion for possible content for levels 20 to 40 if ever such a thing should come about.

I am thinking that the level 20 to 40 content should focus on more pvp, keeps/castles, relics, and siege content, as well as the old school dungeon crawling quests and raids.

PvP

I believe that all lvl 20 to 40 players should play in a open free for all pvp zone, where anyone can be attacked anywhere. Towns should be somewhat safe havens with guards who will protect the non agressors. And players who are killed should have a 50 percent chance drop a item on there being in a loot bag as a result from dying. The reason this is needed is to keep the risk vs reward factor valid, if no one losses anything then you have everyone running around in the best gear all the time which devalues pvp and the need to recurculate quests, weapons, and items to keep it interesting.

Keeps and Castles

I think that all guilds should have the option to construct a keep or castle if they have resources too. Depending where a keep or castle is built will provide the guild with a ingame buff as long as the keep/castle is standing. The buffs provided by the area will create one of three reasons for guild conflict/interaction and sieging of the keep or castle to keep gameplay exciting. Castles/keeps can be subject to sieges where they can be destroyed. A sword of war can be placed at the guild castle/keep to notify them they will be attacked in 24 hours giving the guild a chance to assemble to defend a siege. If the throne of the castle or keep is destroyed then the castle/keep is unable to be rebuilt and destroyed. Keep/Castles can have trainers, player item vendors, bars for rezzes, and the vault (which is covered in the relics section.)

Relics

Relics are rare special items that will provide an extra buff to the entire guild on top of a location buff. These relics can be housed in player's keeps/castles vaults. Vaults are underground fortresses under the castle/keeps contructed by the guild master with various traps, monsters, npcs, etc. Guilds can choose to raid another castle or keeps vault just for the relics other than spending vasts amount of money for siege equipment. Optionally vaults can house the guild bank as well, which could be raided for a small percentage of items housed within.

Siege

Siege would be an awesome element to the game, infact I know a lot of people looking for a siege type of game ever since the downfall of Shadowbane. DDO seems to have the stability, physics, gameplay, to make seige actually work correctly. As a old school pnp d and d player I know most of the 20 to 40 content is focused at large scale battles and pvp so it wouldn't be too far of a stretch to suggest this type of content. I think it would present a fresh, new, and exciting side to ddo and would present some nice end game content.

Old school quests and raids

Of course included all the kick ass dungeons you craft already. With some relic items for rewards.

Thanks for your time!

*cheers*

Letrii
10-10-2009, 08:17 AM
Make an optional PVP zone sure, but not making us do PVP after 20. Also, no PVP if it affects PVE at all.

Where do you get idea epic levels are based on PVP in DnD?

Graypaws
10-10-2009, 01:30 PM
No, nonononononononono. Gods no. Pvp should just remain a sport. Gods above, pvp ruins games not originally designed around it. Last thing DDO needs is the balancing act that competitive pvp would bring.

Visty
10-10-2009, 01:33 PM
someone smoked the wrong thing?

/not signed

pvp is the worst thing you can bring in this game

Memnir
10-10-2009, 01:34 PM
I will only politely state that these ideas are not ones I support, nor do I feel they would be a good fit for this game.

Lorien_the_First_One
10-10-2009, 01:35 PM
So the OP wants to throw out everything good about DDO for upper levels? Um, no thanks.

dasein18
10-10-2009, 01:40 PM
Want to build a keep? Buy some legos.

/not signed.

mediocresurgeon
10-10-2009, 01:42 PM
I think having a Guild Hall is a great idea. The Devs have been taking about that since Mod 5. A Guild Hall would not have to even have a direct impact on gameplay--just a place to rest up, buy gear, gamble, and have a quick log out function (like a privately-owned Portable Hole). Adding trophies to the walls for accomplishments would also be cool.

I don't think PvP siege warfare has a place in DDO.

Ayspy
10-10-2009, 01:44 PM
WoW or AoC sounds like what you want. Try wow.com, for more info :)

HotDogBun
10-10-2009, 01:46 PM
The last thing any MMO needs is PvP. If PvP became an integrated and maintained portion of this game, you would see the player base shift violently to a bunch of fat 12 year old boys compensating for their real life inadequacies by running around pwning each other and talking about Chuck Norris.

Rabbi_Hordo
10-10-2009, 01:46 PM
As a old school pnp d and d player I know most of the 20 to 40 content is focused at large scale battles and pvp so it wouldn't be too far of a stretch to suggest this type of content.


Having played PnP since it was called Chainmail, and played all incarnations of D&D including Basic, AD&D, D&D2,3 & 3.5 (I have the 4.0 books, but no desire to play such a ruleset) since 1976 I have to dispute your assertion. I have gone to countless conventions, GENCONs and whatnot in the past, and even hosted a few at my alma mater "back in the day" and have not seen this as a common feature. It was rarely, if ever, used and it was not anything universally accepted but rather gratuitiously dependent upon an individual DM/GM and a unique ruleset as a result. I am wondering just how old school you are? I have been perusing my old modules and such and see a distinct paucity of such campaign material, and only a handful of books with applicable rulesets designed, as stated, as optional material outside the purview of the primary focus of AD&D/D&D (depending on source) as a role playing game.

Graypaws
10-10-2009, 01:50 PM
What the OP really wants is Ultima Online, before Trammel was created. Trust me, the open pvp, dry-looting pker type was killing that game. And anything remotely close to that in DDO would be the final nail.

sigtrent
10-10-2009, 02:00 PM
I'm surprised no one pointed out that in D&D up until 4th edition levels above 20 were generally not part of the core game and were rarely used special sets for playing gods or god like characters.

There have always been such rules but they were far more read than played.

I doubt we will have a level bump soon although if the game remains popular eventually it will happen.

Mistinarperadnacles
10-10-2009, 02:05 PM
Level 20 to 40? Ok, I realise the "typical" MMO game relies on many levels to keep advancement feeling fresh. There has never been any scope or need for levels above 20 in D&D. DDO made a slight concession to this in Enhancements (Ranks)

PvP is a very bad idea for any game where it isn't specifically the focus of the game. PvE games and players just don't work for PvP. The PvP looting element is just shockingly bad. (For this game and IMO in general)

Keeps and Castles are great. Guild Houses of whatever form (Halls, Zones, Keeps Whatever) would be a nice addition for guilds to have a place that their fluff loving members can decorate and that they can use for all manner of administration and fun events. Seiges and Persistent Buffs and all that PvP rubbish not only doesn't work in DDO very well but many (if not most) DDO players don't care for it. Those that do generally get their PvP kicks elsewhere.


Whilst these game styles are fun of themselves, they are so far removed from DDO.

This absence is also precisely why many people play DDO in the first place.

I would quit DDO faster than I quit SWG if they pulled this nonsense.

The game you want already exists in Dark Age Of Camelot. Possible the most extensive level/pvp/realm v realm MMO out there. Other PvP stuff is always better kept to dedicated PvP games like Tribes or Fallen Earth or CoD.

xanvar
10-10-2009, 02:08 PM
I simply disagree here, other people have made valid points as to why not to do this suggestion.

Danandez
10-10-2009, 07:39 PM
There were questions about level 20 to 40 and siege being relevant in D&D. The rule set for siege wasn't a module but rather was written in the AD&D 20-40 core books for people who wanted to progress there character past the 20th level. Basically these TSR books gave players an option for those who wanted to spend thier aquired wealth on something. Instructions, stats, and prices of various siege equipement, castles, keeps etc were available in those core books. There was even a core book for levels 40 through 60 to where character was pretty much deemed immortal/god like and they had a rule set for that too, although I never got that high.

I do not agree that pvp kills games, or looting, etc. What really kills games is a bad risk vs rewards system. This game currently happens to have a good RvsR system. You enter a dungeon, theres a certain amount of risk involved and you get rewarded depending on how much risk you take (aka difficulty level). What makes a bad game is when you have all rewards and no risk, via castles or keeps that just sit there providing all the comfort and fluff but with no risk of losing it. Lets face it, castles or kings were not created by people who didnt take risks, to have otherwise would be pointless imo. You would just have people logging on every few months to refresh there castle to look at the junk they never use.

I agree with you on the point that players shouldn't be forced to pvp, but for the ones that enjoy people this castle and keep option should be made available for those that like pvp. Perhaps make castle and keeps and the zone available to people who join PvP guilds only. Either way I like the game how it is, and I intend to keep on playing it, this just happens to be my suggestion to make it better and create a more interesting endgame.

Graypaws
10-10-2009, 08:51 PM
There were questions about level 20 to 40 and siege being relevant in D&D. The rule set for siege wasn't a module but rather was written in the AD&D 20-40 core books for people who wanted to progress there character past the 20th level. Basically these TSR books gave players an option for those who wanted to spend thier aquired wealth on something. Instructions, stats, and prices of various siege equipement, castles, keeps etc were available in those core books. There was even a core book for levels 40 through 60 to where character was pretty much deemed immortal/god like and they had a rule set for that too, although I never got that high.

I do not agree that pvp kills games, or looting, etc. What really kills games is a bad risk vs rewards system. This game currently happens to have a good RvsR system. You enter a dungeon, theres a certain amount of risk involved and you get rewarded depending on how much risk you take (aka difficulty level). What makes a bad game is when you have all rewards and no risk, via castles or keeps that just sit there providing all the comfort and fluff but with no risk of losing it. Lets face it, castles or kings were not created by people who didnt take risks, to have otherwise would be pointless imo. You would just have people logging on every few months to refresh there castle to look at the junk they never use.

I agree with you on the point that players shouldn't be forced to pvp, but for the ones that enjoy people this castle and keep option should be made available for those that like pvp. Perhaps make castle and keeps and the zone available to people who join PvP guilds only. Either way I like the game how it is, and I intend to keep on playing it, this just happens to be my suggestion to make it better and create a more interesting endgame.

And I still disagree with you. Pvp does ruin games. Why you ask? Because when games are first pushed without pvp being taken into consideration, some classes have a clear advantage over others. That would need tweaking, which would lead to pve nerfs. That is the way it works, period. Ive not seen any game balance it unless it was set up with pvp balance to begin with. When I came back to DDO and heard pvp had been introduced, I about quit then. Should it be given more of a spotlight, I would quit immediately. I have seen it destroy many online games and its slowly destroying the Giant that is World of Warcraft.

Gleipner
10-10-2009, 09:08 PM
I agree with you on the point that players shouldn't be forced to pvp, but for the ones that enjoy people this castle and keep option should be made available for those that like pvp. Perhaps make castle and keeps and the zone available to people who join PvP guilds only. Either way I like the game how it is, and I intend to keep on playing it, this just happens to be my suggestion to make it better and create a more interesting endgame.

Opening post:/notsigned

So for let´s see here 5% out of the entire (vet porpulation) you think this would be a good idea while 95% reacts in a negative way to this proposal.
Seriously go play a game made for PvP.

Mistinarperadnacles
10-10-2009, 11:07 PM
I like that you enjoy the game and your ideas to make things more enjoyable for you. I just can't get behing them personally, and I am quite vehemently opposed to the direction you suggest as I have seen it first hand destroy games I loved for years. Just for discussion purposese, here's why.


The rule set for siege wasn't a module but rather was written in the AD&D 20-40 core books for people who wanted to progress there character past the 20th level.

While its true that various editions brought in things like extremely silly "Immortals" stuff, through 3rd Edition's "Epic" into 4th Edition's standard level 30 cap, D&D has never really embraced beyond 20th level. Characters become so powerful that the gaming is just dull. You did mention risk/reward and this is why 20+ sucks. There's zero risk whatsoever if I can destroy the universe with a thought or beat a god's face in with half a rock, causing the games to rapidly accelerate beyond the ridiculous. Yes, Eberron is an extremely "high magic" setting, but there comes a point when it just gets too much.



I do not agree that pvp kills games, or looting, etc.

Star Wars Galaxies did exactly this. Things were going well, it was an above average game with the very best atmosphere and fluff ever (if you liked Star Wars that is) Shiny new expansions brought extremely-hard-to-become Jedi and Starships and exciting prospects. Then they had the dreaded Combat Rebalance which trashed the levelling system so they could implement the New Game Experience and bring the Empire / Rebellion war to fully realised PvP glory. In theory, it should have been great. What actually happened was that people left in droves. Overnight. They didn't like PvP and most definitely didn't like the constant griefing, ganking, loot robbery and expletive filled vulgar immaturity.

The game was built for PvE and PvP existed much the same as it does in DDO now. Introducing wide scale PvP absolutely and directly destroyed it. It took years to recover to the point where some people went back, but then they couldn't keep the servers up and closed a huge swathe of them and won't ever recover now that The Old Republic is around the corner.

City Of Heroes PvP is played by extremely few people as once again, it is a PvE designed game. Granted they did try to have seperate rulesets for powers in PvE and PvP, but still nobody really bothered. Of my extensive friends list, only one person played in the PvP zones more than a handful of novelty times.

Conversely, games like Tribes are still popular for PvP because they do it so very well. 8 years old and still going? With no PvE at all? It works because its built as a PvP game. Dark Age Of Camelot is perhaps the exception that a game can start out PvE and evolve into PvP. The Realm V Realm stuff there is very well done and still has many players I know. But it does exclude the PvE side. RvR players just don't bother with it. Warhammer Online and Age Of Conan had PvP promise but have had launch issues and bug problems which hampered the initial rush of new players staying around. Though they could still turn out to be very good and have a slice of marketshare purely because they were initially built to have an aspect of PvP.

DDO is not built for it, technically nor conceptually, so I'd much rather that this PvP stuff doesn't take away from the resources thrown at the PvE game I enjoy.


Maybe that sounds a lot like personal opinion, but I'm trying also to objectively point out why it would possibly be A Very Bad Thing for a game like DDO.

Uska
10-11-2009, 10:41 AM
no Thanks

Uska
10-11-2009, 10:47 AM
I like that you enjoy the game and your ideas to make things more enjoyable for you. I just can't get behing them personally, and I am quite vehemently opposed to the direction you suggest as I have seen it first hand destroy games I loved for years. Just for discussion purposese, here's why.



While its true that various editions brought in things like extremely silly "Immortals" stuff, through 3rd Edition's "Epic" into 4th Edition's standard level 30 cap, D&D has never really embraced beyond 20th level. Characters become so powerful that the gaming is just dull. You did mention risk/reward and this is why 20+ sucks. There's zero risk whatsoever if I can destroy the universe with a thought or beat a god's face in with half a rock, causing the games to rapidly accelerate beyond the ridiculous. Yes, Eberron is an extremely "high magic" setting, but there comes a point when it just gets too much.




Star Wars Galaxies did exactly this. Things were going well, it was an above average game with the very best atmosphere and fluff ever (if you liked Star Wars that is) Shiny new expansions brought extremely-hard-to-become Jedi and Starships and exciting prospects. Then they had the dreaded Combat Rebalance which trashed the levelling system so they could implement the New Game Experience and bring the Empire / Rebellion war to fully realised PvP glory. In theory, it should have been great. What actually happened was that people left in droves. Overnight. They didn't like PvP and most definitely didn't like the constant griefing, ganking, loot robbery and expletive filled vulgar immaturity.

The game was built for PvE and PvP existed much the same as it does in DDO now. Introducing wide scale PvP absolutely and directly destroyed it. It took years to recover to the point where some people went back, but then they couldn't keep the servers up and closed a huge swathe of them and won't ever recover now that The Old Republic is around the corner.

City Of Heroes PvP is played by extremely few people as once again, it is a PvE designed game. Granted they did try to have seperate rulesets for powers in PvE and PvP, but still nobody really bothered. Of my extensive friends list, only one person played in the PvP zones more than a handful of novelty times.

Conversely, games like Tribes are still popular for PvP because they do it so very well. 8 years old and still going? With no PvE at all? It works because its built as a PvP game. Dark Age Of Camelot is perhaps the exception that a game can start out PvE and evolve into PvP. The Realm V Realm stuff there is very well done and still has many players I know. But it does exclude the PvE side. RvR players just don't bother with it. Warhammer Online and Age Of Conan had PvP promise but have had launch issues and bug problems which hampered the initial rush of new players staying around. Though they could still turn out to be very good and have a slice of marketshare purely because they were initially built to have an aspect of PvP.

DDO is not built for it, technically nor conceptually, so I'd much rather that this PvP stuff doesn't take away from the resources thrown at the PvE game I enjoy.


Maybe that sounds a lot like personal opinion, but I'm trying also to objectively point out why it would possibly be A Very Bad Thing for a game like DDO.

Have to disagree about one thing pvp was alive and well in SWG from the start at least where I hung around the battles between Anchorhead and Bestine were epic and it was great back in the days before vechiles and Jedi even later when they added jedi it was still fun to try to kill one and the joy of destroying someones AV-21 in the days before they could repair was fantastic. But no pvp here, we didnt start with in mind the classes dont fit it.

Silverpoint
10-11-2009, 11:12 AM
PVP is a bad idea if you want to do that then go find another MMO!

MagicianBlade
10-11-2009, 11:42 AM
Make an optional PVP zone sure, but not making us do PVP after 20. Also, no PVP if it affects PVE at all.

Where do you get idea epic levels are based on PVP in DnD?

I'd like to see an entire city of PvP. I'd also like to be able to cast the whole range of spells in town, even if they couldn't actually affect anyone. It'd be very nice to be able to show off. :D

Danandez
10-11-2009, 12:34 PM
I like that you enjoy the game and your ideas to make things more enjoyable for you. I just can't get behing them personally, and I am quite vehemently opposed to the direction you suggest as I have seen it first hand destroy games I loved for years. Just for discussion purposese, here's why.



While its true that various editions brought in things like extremely silly "Immortals" stuff, through 3rd Edition's "Epic" into 4th Edition's standard level 30 cap, D&D has never really embraced beyond 20th level. Characters become so powerful that the gaming is just dull. You did mention risk/reward and this is why 20+ sucks. There's zero risk whatsoever if I can destroy the universe with a thought or beat a god's face in with half a rock, causing the games to rapidly accelerate beyond the ridiculous. Yes, Eberron is an extremely "high magic" setting, but there comes a point when it just gets too much.




Star Wars Galaxies did exactly this. Things were going well, it was an above average game with the very best atmosphere and fluff ever (if you liked Star Wars that is) Shiny new expansions brought extremely-hard-to-become Jedi and Starships and exciting prospects. Then they had the dreaded Combat Rebalance which trashed the levelling system so they could implement the New Game Experience and bring the Empire / Rebellion war to fully realised PvP glory. In theory, it should have been great. What actually happened was that people left in droves. Overnight. They didn't like PvP and most definitely didn't like the constant griefing, ganking, loot robbery and expletive filled vulgar immaturity.

The game was built for PvE and PvP existed much the same as it does in DDO now. Introducing wide scale PvP absolutely and directly destroyed it. It took years to recover to the point where some people went back, but then they couldn't keep the servers up and closed a huge swathe of them and won't ever recover now that The Old Republic is around the corner.

City Of Heroes PvP is played by extremely few people as once again, it is a PvE designed game. Granted they did try to have seperate rulesets for powers in PvE and PvP, but still nobody really bothered. Of my extensive friends list, only one person played in the PvP zones more than a handful of novelty times.

Conversely, games like Tribes are still popular for PvP because they do it so very well. 8 years old and still going? With no PvE at all? It works because its built as a PvP game. Dark Age Of Camelot is perhaps the exception that a game can start out PvE and evolve into PvP. The Realm V Realm stuff there is very well done and still has many players I know. But it does exclude the PvE side. RvR players just don't bother with it. Warhammer Online and Age Of Conan had PvP promise but have had launch issues and bug problems which hampered the initial rush of new players staying around. Though they could still turn out to be very good and have a slice of marketshare purely because they were initially built to have an aspect of PvP.

DDO is not built for it, technically nor conceptually, so I'd much rather that this PvP stuff doesn't take away from the resources thrown at the PvE game I enjoy.


Maybe that sounds a lot like personal opinion, but I'm trying also to objectively point out why it would possibly be A Very Bad Thing for a game like DDO.

First off thank you for your understand that this is a suggestion, and not a demand, I find it an oxymoron to where the self proclamed more civilized gamers cannot have a decent discussion, instead paranoia takes hold and they find themselves screaming at me to find another game.

You have a good point to where taking ddo past 20 people will be too powerful and god like. To be honest I have yet to experience end game content in this game, I am a little over mid game right now and happy with it. The main reason I suggested idea is that I do see the level 20 cap coming up and I am thinking what happens from there, so I look what what seems to be underdevolped. And of course the first thing I notice that is underdevolped is the guild system and player interaction. So my thought spawns forth from the idea of how do you expand on those to make a better game.

I am a bit of a 13+ year vet when it comes to playing MMOs, I still don't agree with you that PvP destroys games and I stick to my guns that its bad RvsR systems that do. SWG is a great example. I was there when the player base left, pvp was alive and well before the majority ditched that game, the reason being was for a couple of reasons, but not pvp. First reason is they did away with an entire class the Tera Kasi which was one hell of a grind to get and they just wiped it off the map. Second was them doing away with the difficulty of becoming a Jedi. So now you have everyone in game being a jedi. Which goes back to my point of all reward no risk makes for a terrible game. You get all the reward of becoming a Jedi with out taking the risk to become one. First off that leaves gamers bitter for the ones that did have to grind it out, and second there is no challenge which makes the game boring.

The same holds true in games like World of Warcraft. PvP exists in that game, but it is terrible because there is no risk vs rewards system. Again it is all reward for those who have the best gear, and no risk because players cannot lose what they have as a concequence. So you have everyone running around in god like gear all the time and those who cannot obtain it because they do not have the right connections. This leads to bordem and griefing by the destoryers, and fustration and bordem by the have nots. Pretty much a terrible system.

The reason why pvp was successful in other games was because a good Risk vs Rewards system like UO and Shadowbane. However UO graphics and gameplay are badly outdated. UO begun to lose its player base when it introduced trammel and later insured items which made it that you didnt drop certain items and therefore destroying the risk vs reward system. Shadowbane could not control the hacks and bugs that eventually lead to its downfall. If you died in these games you lost parts of what you carried on you which meant you could not always walk around in the best gear, skill was needed to be successful, and it gave blacksmiths and crafters a reason to craft because items would be recirculated.

And last, I believe that immaturity exists everywhere in every game not just pvp communities, just look at some of the replies to this posting. I can give further examples of people not grouping because someone does not know the content, blocking people from there groups because they did not spec the way they wanted them too, or leaving or disbanding because english isnt the players first language. In some cases it is a shame we cannot PvP perhaps there would resolve a few issues creating a conscquence for immature player actions.

Althotas
10-11-2009, 12:42 PM
If you want to PvP go to another game.

Graypaws
10-11-2009, 12:47 PM
The reason why pvp was successful in other games was because a good Risk vs Rewards system like UO and Shadowbane. However UO graphics and gameplay are badly outdated. UO begun to lose its player base when it introduced trammel and later insured items which made it that you didnt drop certain items and therefore destroying the risk vs reward system. Shadowbane could not control the hacks and bugs that eventually lead to its downfall. If you died in these games you lost parts of what you carried on you which meant you could not always walk around in the best gear, skill was needed to be successful, and it gave blacksmiths and crafters a reason to craft because items would be recirculated.



Sorry, but you are wrong about UO. The playerbase for UO went way up after trammel was introduced. Felucca became a ghost town. The rush to get away from pvp was SO great, when trammel was first opened, every single server crashed due to overload. UO died off later due to badly implemented expansions, poor base game engine (an inherent deadend for character advancement baked right into the game, similar to COH), and several other better games. Wow's pvp system is flawed in that it was not apart of the original game and as such has caused a never ending circle of balancing tweaks (see nerf) to enable all the classes and specs to compete. COH, was a good example of why pvp should either start at the beginning or never be introduced. They added the arena as the base, to explore further pvp options, and within months, balancing nerfs came down the pipe that affected pve.

RequiemVampie
10-11-2009, 12:49 PM
I'll start this off by saying:

/not signed

I agree that having PvP with actual gains would be the final nail for DDO. People only PvP because the like the challenge it posses opposed to game AI or to test their latest toon against others. I don't PvP. I have no use for it.

While the guild hall, keep, or castle is a good idea, the siege warfare aspect of it sucks. People in guilds are not always on at all times and their home could be constantly destroyed if only a few people were to show up.

As for the levels...it will be a while before we see another level increase. Even then, not that great of an increase. Usually 4 or 5 levels at most.

Why anyone would make or play a game centered on PvP is beyond me.

Again....

/not signed

enochiancub
10-11-2009, 12:52 PM
Not going to tell you to go to another game cause thats just rude. However I really would rather not see pvp here, if for nothing else than it would take precious dev time away from developing new content and it would demand that classes be "balanced" when they just realy should not be.


Idea for the fluff aspects i.e. guild halls and such are kinda nice. Though again I'd rather see more content and the rest of the races/classes.

Either way, was a very nicely laid out post. Sorry you caught so much flack for it.

CrimsonEagle
10-11-2009, 01:01 PM
If they implement what you suggest I would cancel my yearly subscription so quick that their eyes would spin. It would be time for me to move on.

There are some things that they have done in this game since I have been here that I have agreed with, even though it would weaken my characters, and other things that have infuriated me because it pretty much destroyed them.

No matter though, I stayed and adapted because all in all, I love the game.

What you have suggested would be my proverbial line in the sand.

No.......just no.

Quarks
10-11-2009, 01:05 PM
What the OP really wants is Ultima Online, before Trammel was created. Trust me, the open pvp, dry-looting pker type was killing that game. And anything remotely close to that in DDO would be the final nail.

While I strongly disagree with the OP's suggestion, I must disagree with this statement even more.

No PK killed UO. Trammel did. Trammel killed teamwork and any kind of sense of accomplishment that once was an integral part of UO. Trammel was the start of the easy button and it went very steeply downhill from there. Yes the game still exists, but what a sorry figure it is, compared to what it used to be...

Graypaws
10-11-2009, 01:09 PM
While I strongly disagree with the OP's suggestion, I must disagree with this statement even more.

No PK killed UO. Trammel did. Trammel killed teamwork and any kind of sense of accomplishment that once was an integral part of UO. Trammel was the start of the easy button and it went very steeply downhill from there. Yes the game still exists, but what a sorry figure it is, compared to what it used to be...

I already gave my reasons for what I believe killed UO, just read above. It sure wasnt trammel. And I said pvp was killing it, not what killed it. UO wasnt newbie friendly at all when felucca was the only facet.

Aside from that, DDO does NOT need pvp nor the stupid balancing act that would come with it.

Talon_Moonshadow
10-11-2009, 01:28 PM
Well, I like your suggestions.

And I do want to see Epic lvls.

I really want to see Epic lvls. :)

But I actually hope they will keep the cap at 20 for awhile. And work on other things first.

(Druids!!!!!!)

Give us awhile for the game to catch up to us.

Zippo
10-11-2009, 01:34 PM
There were questions about level 20 to 40 and siege being relevant in D&D. The rule set for siege wasn't a module but rather was written in the AD&D 20-40 core books for people who wanted to progress there character past the 20th level. Basically these TSR books gave players an option for those who wanted to spend thier aquired wealth on something. Instructions, stats, and prices of various siege equipement, castles, keeps etc were available in those core books. There was even a core book for levels 40 through 60 to where character was pretty much deemed immortal/god like and they had a rule set for that too, although I never got that high.

I do not agree that pvp kills games, or looting, etc. What really kills games is a bad risk vs rewards system. This game currently happens to have a good RvsR system. You enter a dungeon, theres a certain amount of risk involved and you get rewarded depending on how much risk you take (aka difficulty level). What makes a bad game is when you have all rewards and no risk, via castles or keeps that just sit there providing all the comfort and fluff but with no risk of losing it. Lets face it, castles or kings were not created by people who didnt take risks, to have otherwise would be pointless imo. You would just have people logging on every few months to refresh there castle to look at the junk they never use.

I agree with you on the point that players shouldn't be forced to pvp, but for the ones that enjoy people this castle and keep option should be made available for those that like pvp. Perhaps make castle and keeps and the zone available to people who join PvP guilds only. Either way I like the game how it is, and I intend to keep on playing it, this just happens to be my suggestion to make it better and create a more interesting endgame.

http://www.zmogo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/carveybush-300x300.jpg

"Not Gonna Do It!"

Zippo
10-11-2009, 01:49 PM
First off thank you for your understand that this is a suggestion, and not a demand, I find it an oxymoron to where the self proclamed more civilized gamers cannot have a decent discussion, instead paranoia takes hold and they find themselves screaming at me to find another game.

It's because we've had this conversation a 100 different times already. You think your the first to voice these kind of ideas? Think again. While Turbine relented and eventually gave a few pvp pits in the taverns for people who wanted to do so, it just won't go any further then that. To much of the player base will refuse to stand around and allow for the massive amounts of PVE balancing required to placate a few PVP'rs. SO you need to understand that its not paranoia, it is annoyance of the same thing being brought up once again.

Robi3.0
10-11-2009, 01:57 PM
L
/snip
PvP

Towns should be somewhat safe havens with guards who will protect the non agressors.

/snip

Since when have city guard been able to protect anyone from anything? In my 20 level all I remember doing is saving city guards' asses and doing their jobs.

Mistinarperadnacles
10-11-2009, 09:26 PM
< A most excellently written rep worthy post >

That's a very good reply. I guess my dislike of PvP is coloured not by PvP itself, but more the problems (perhaps inherent) that come with it.

You're right on in that PvP of itself is not a bad thing and that growth, expansion and new challenges are great lifeblood for any game.

You're also experiencing a different view of SWG than I did, but I suppose that's because we're different gamers. I remember doing some of the PvP stuff in Bestine I believe, but didn't get into it. I knew it was there, and I didn't mind, but I didn't participate and that was fine. I could choose to do that. Still, everyone I knew, which were players more like minded and not fans of PvP their reason for leaving was that overnight you couldn't get off a shuttle without being immediately ganked by a hoard of PK-ing 'tards.

I feel the only way to have PvP in MMOs is to include it from the ground up. So the system can be built properly to account for it without needing the constant flow of nerfs and changes. This way, players know what to expect and are emracing of the changes.

I feel that the problem for PvP in DDO is twofold. Firstly, the players. It seems to me that a majority of the playerbase are not fans of PvP. The problem this causes is that if introduced in a large scale way, optional or not, many players of this mindset would (as shown in the thread) leave. As a non-PvP game, DDO is likely to attract players that have no interest in it as well as those more negatively opposed to it. These anti-PvP players would be extremely unhappy.

Players with a more middleground view would be happy until they try this new PvP stuff and eventually run across an unfortunate side effect of PvP - the immature griefer. They get hopelessly ganked and then some trash talking 12 year old steals their stuff? Their Greensteel or Dragontouched that could have taken months to get? This leaves them feeling akin to being mugged and they have no desire to experience that again.

Players more pro PvP could feel frustrated by the opposition to what they know can be great fun and this can sometimes escalate into PvP wars with the strongy voiced of each side upsetting the other. (as happens here.)

Secondly, the system couldn't handle it. Step into a PvP pit with any spellcaster if you dare. Energy Drain, Bestow Curse, Flesh To Stone, few whacks with a Wounding weapon. You're sitting there a long time. Let alone if they're powerful enough to throw Mordenkainen's Disjunction at you. Ok. So "no spellcasters" event. Consistently owned by the monk splash build with a standing 80AC that boosts to 110ish. Dungeons and Dragons PC characters have always been massively powerful in the pen and pencil game. They've translated to being massively powerful in DDO with the addition of massively powerful loot. The imbalance betweeen characters can be so very huge in DDO that so much work would be required to have anything approaching the balance required for a large scale PvP system.

Perhaps if they ever do look at relaunching DDO ala Asherons Call and become DDO2 it might be something they consider including from the get go. I wouldn't mind that at all. But to try and shoehorn it in where it just isn't gonna fit just seems to me like a massive waste of effort.

I'm all for suggestions and I really wouldn't mind if the PvP Challenege system they brought in with Mod9 were to be expanded a little. Perhaps they could utilise the Threanal Arena and have some proper organised PvP duels and party V party rumbles. Some players have organised events for their server that have always looked like great fun.

I wouldn't like to see an impelementation of any PvP beyond that though.

As for approaching the level cap and feeling that it might be a ceiling for you, new introductions for quests and the game system that are testing on beta server now look set to potentially greatly increase the longevity of the levelling system. Whether it ends up feeling like just an artificially big grind or not I don't know yet.