Written by Al Thorin:
PVP has always had different issues, some steming from template imbalances, items issues, as well as many bugs.
Through all of this, the actual system of open PVP has always seemed to have some holes in it. Not the items, or the skills, or damage, just the actual system of how an open PVP system works.
While this groups primary focus is things that are broken, I would still like to submit a concept for discussion and thought. I'm more than aware that this is probably well beyond the scope of purpose for this group, but I still think presenting it may be bennificial.
Limits and self moderation
Currently, there are very few limits to PVP, and no reason for self moderation in the activity. What was once a chance (getting PK'd) is now as close to a guarentee as you can get. While many players prefer this type of system, it serves to create a hostile segregation between different playstyles, and it severly limits the PVP facet to mostly the hardcore players.
There are many players who do enjoy a risk, they would be than willing to risk getting attacked, but the current system takes that risk, and turns it into expectation. Gone are the days where one would watch another player out of the corner of their eye, wondering if they will take a count, or how much room they have before risking statloss. Everyone was a possible foe insead of an automatic one.
The following is a concept presentation for the reintroduction and modification of the old statloss system.
The big bang. Reintroduction of Statloss
Statloss was a panic'd reaction and fix to rampent PK'ing. The amusing aspect of the introduction of it, is that it we are once again in the exact same situation, except people have the choice to going to another facet. There is no reason a player must decide wether they wish to kill someone outside of wether they wish to be red or blue.
Statloss helped create many self moderated activities. A player had no less options than they do now. You could gank, PK, and hunt players, but each act was dependent on the situation. Reds were fair game, greys had to be watched, and blues enjoyed a degree of protection from ganks, since 1 count was meaningfull, getting 5 counts on a single person was usually not desired.
Statloss was too harsh once the facets split. So any attempt to revisit the system involves reassesing what would now be considered fair.
This is one option. It is not permanent, and offers a very similar effect to the old system. Simple baseline value, 15 minutes at 15% statloss for each death. It's not a crippling effect, but it is a negative one, and gives an advantage to non PK players. The risk is a temporary disadvantage for death, the reward is freedom in PVP, and the overall effect is increased challange to being a statloss red.
Another option is to limit recalling/gating to only a few times a day. Gates could be 5, recalls could be 16. (8 two way trips) This would also carry over to USING player made gates. Public moongates would be unlimited.
Again, this simply adds an additional challange to unmoderated killing. It is not destructive in nature, and offers something to think about before mowing over blues.
Increased Insurance costs
This option is simple. The insurance company considers you a high risk, and you pay more! The baseline value is 600 GP per item, per death. Not crippling again, and makes it harder to maintain status quo. Freedom comes at a cost!
Before the counts, the flagging system revisted
Before one can really consider statloss, one has to revisit what is considered PK'ing. The act of killing an -unwilling- participant. The current flagging system does -not- allow for a fair engagment between anything blue.
The basis of allowing a freeform PVP system is to allow -any- group of players to engage in mutual PVP, while offering an 'out' to those that are unwilling. For this, we need a simple way to allow for players to choose between defending themselves, or running away. One or the other.
When any player first attacks another, there will be a 2 second delay, where any 'defensive' damage returned to the attacker is 'ignored' for flagging. After the initial 2 seconds, any attack, damage dealing or not will reverse flag the defender to the attacker. The defender will now be 'grey' to the attacker, and vise versa. Any initial criminal, or grey flags will not be cancled, but till time out normally, although the oportunity to give counts will be -immediatly- removed, and both participants will become combat flagged an unable to recall.
Something would have to be added to stop people from holding down an attack last macro in hopes of an auto defend.
Possibly just making it so that in peace mode, attacks are not defended against, and in war mode they are.
This would involve many players adjusting how they play Any attack would would force a player into war mode, and that would have to be watched carefully before trying to remount. (Fix mounting by macro's so that an attempt to mount in warmode = attacking pet)
This will remove the ability to flee to recieve the aid of city guards if you willingly fight back.
Oranges are exempt from this system completly.
Factions will be adjusted to include the new flagging system when it comes to outside interfearance. Any attack against a single faction member will flag you to the whole (and present) target faction members, and any bennificial act will flag you to -all- present faction members.
Combined with reverse flagging, we'll need a way to help limit passive participants.
Thus we introduce shared flags. The ability to recieve your targets flags, and your targets foe's flag.
The only way to describe this is an example.
Players A and B are fighting, and are each flagged to each other.
Player C comes up and heals Player A.
Player C is now also flagged against player B, but player B is not yet flagged against Player C.
Player B now has the option of freely attacking Player C, but Player C cannot freely attack player B untill they are attacked first.
What happens in party, stays in party. Mostly
The concept of group PVP is a good one. So here we introduce flagging in party's. Any two or more partys can engage another party (or lone player), and flags will become shared according to how many people are in each party.
** This section is a bit messy. **
While I know it's possible to impliment, it could pose a challange
Party A has 4 members, Party B has 6.
Party A attacks party B, all of party A becomes flagged to the target member B, plus 3 other random members in party B, while Party A does not recieve any reverse flags untill someone from Party B retaliates.
When party B retaliates, the 4 members that recieved flag from party A will become reverse flagged to all of Party A.
The 2 remaining Party members cannot recieve or share any flags untill someone from Party A attacks one or both.
If the 2 remaining members heal their party members, Party A recieves a flag for them, making them freely attackable, but the 2 players cannot freely attack untill they recieve a flag from Party A.
Also, flags can be shared beyond a party.
If 3 non partied blues attack a red in a 4 player party, the 3 blues become flagged to the red, and 2 other party members.
While auto shared flags are limited by the number of party members, initial auto defensive flags are unlimited.
If one player comes under attack by 5 people, they have 5 flags on them, thus resulting in 5 flags being shared between the party members. If one player comes under attack by 20 people (all overlapping a 2 min period), the party would still recieve all those flags.
If 5 partys of 10 blues (5 attacks by 1 of each group) attack a single group of 10 blues, the 10 blues would automatically recieve 50 flags, thus being able to freely attack -any- of the attacking 50 blues.
But if they only defend vs one group, the remaining 40 blues would never recieve a shared combat flag.
Cross healing would become very dangerous in that situation, but resising the urge would result in 400 counts
Thus ganks are still very possible, but like the old system, it comes at a great cost.
As far as implementation, I think it would be possible to be able to add it, the right approach would probably be on an individual basis, triggered by an attack or aid, followed by a party count check, followed by passing on flags.
The theory would be limiting freedom of ganks, but encouraging full participation of even fights upto 10 people per side.
(IE A larger group will always have limits, but the smaller group would end up with all the freedom)
Long Term to 24 hours.
Short term to 6 hours.
Converted to real time.
This would permit a 'free' PK a day, and upto 4 PK's a day for reds before considering statloss.
The times could easily be adjusted to allow for more, or less 'freedom' before punishment.
Overall, it is quite a bit to digest, but I think it promotes more participation in Fel with a little less of the hatred it currently evokes.
I can dream, can I not?