Suggestion: Convert to PvP group

[Wanesa]

To have option Convert to PvP group (similar to convert to Raid party)

* you can convert to PvP group only in public area
* PvP group works only in quest / wilderness area
* You get warning before entering any quest in PvP group.
* In PvP group everything works same as in Tavern Brawl
* PvP mode is only disabled near to shrines.
* PvP mode starts when first monster killed / breakable destroyed / door opened / trap disabled
* Killed player is moved to the nearest shrine or at quest entrance after release
* Chests can give more items to players with more kill count etc. XP similar (on case, that group will able to finish the quest).

Example quest worth for PvP party
- any wilderness
- Kobolt Assult
- Devil Assault
- Breaking the Ranks

[cdbd3rd]

Allow me to be the first to /not-signed this.

<Insert the usual reasonings from the standard PvP threads.>

[Wanesa]

Allow me to be the first to /not-signed this.

<Insert the usual reasonings from the standard PvP threads.>

I am disappointed. I expected some new objections why to not extend brawl into quest areas.

You can repeat into oblivion: DDO is not PvP. But some ppls like playing PvP, so why to not allow this as an option. This will not harm you.

You can also use this mode to make quest more challenging ... because it turns off friendly fire protection so you will need to use more brain to finish quest.

[FalseFlag]

This will not harm you.Yes, it does. It would take Dev time away from developing new content and fixing currently broken content, in order to appeal to a very small minority of players for no good reason at all.

[Wanesa]

Yes, it does. It would take Dev time away from developing new content and fixing currently broken content, in order to appeal to a very small minority of players for no good reason at all.

You are in wrong thread. This thread is in "Suggestions and Ideas". You cannot reject an idea because it can possible steal dev's time (despite on that you don't know, how hard can be to implement this. It can take days of development but it also can take a few minutes playing with configuration and UI settings... you have no idea about this)

Write own thread with topic "Suggestion: fix current content and develop new"

[Memnir]

I'd be okay with idea only if every member of the party agrees to it via checkbox - this cannot just be the leader's prerogative. Also, any in-progress partially filled PvP Group would be clearly marked on the LFM panel - like with a broad red boarder, so as it cannot be mistaken for a normal group.


If this would help get PvP out of public instances, and I'd never accidentally wind up in such a group, then I'm all for it.

[Wanesa]

I'd be okay with idea only if every member of the party agrees to it via checkbox - this cannot just be the leader's prerogative. Also, any in-progress partially filled PvP Group would be clearly marked on the LFM panel - like with a broad red boarder, so as it cannot be mistaken for a normal group.


Agreement with all members can be harder to implement, but switching to PvP group doesn't harm any member, until he/she enters into a quest. In the quest, you cannot switch to PvP group, so every player agree with PvP by entering the quest with PvP group. I suggest to pop-up confirmation dialog when user press Enter button in quest enter dialog.

PvP groups should be unavailable in areas with a special event, for example Smugler's rest during Crystal Cove festival or Deleras Grav. during Mabar, etc. This makes things more simple.

LFM border - yes.

[EnjoyTheMoment]

Agreement with all members can be harder to implement, but switching to PvP group doesn't harm any member, until he/she enters into a quest. In the quest, you cannot switch to PvP group, so every player agree with PvP by entering the quest with PvP group. I suggest to pop-up confirmation dialog when user press Enter button in quest enter dialog.

PvP groups should be unavailable in areas with a special event, for example Smugler's rest during Crystal Cove festival or Deleras Grav. during Mabar, etc. This makes things more simple.

LFM border - yes.My initial thinking was more along the lines of Memnir. Getting PvP out of public instances would be a great thing, from my perspective.

But, unless there was an "all agree or no PvP" constraint, players could (and would!) band together to grief others by voting the team into PvP status and then later attacking whomever wasn't in on their little game. Even with an "all agree or no PvP" constraint in place, another trick would be to get applications to join a team from one or more players and then switch to PvP mode just before accepting them into the team. Many in the queue to join would decline or quit team at that point. But, some could be tricked into joining (It's only to make it more challenging, really!), and then griefed later.

No matter what constraints were put in place, though, casual players would have no clue about this system until they got griefed, in most cases, which supplies griefers with a ready supply of people to bother and, therefore, an incentive to continue. In my view, since having casuals driven out of the game by griefing would be a bad thing, that's a key reason to not bother with this whole idea.

[Wanesa]

But, unless there was an "all agree or no PvP" constraint"


Sorry, my bad english probably caused this misunderstanding. I said, that everyone agree by entering to the quest with such a group (THERE should be "agree dialog"). Membership in PvP group has no effect until you enter to quest. Another rule should be, that type of quest (instance) cant be changed when it is already IP including situation when leader recalls, changes group type inside of a public area and reenters.

So i can't sign any extra round of agreement, because it makes things less intuitive. What happens, when some of players will be afk or simply click on "disaggre"? Will you kick him?




Many in the queue to join would decline or quit team at that point. But, some could be tricked into joining (It's only to make it more challenging, really!), and then griefed later.


This is impossible in my suggestion. You can meet with those queued players only in public areas that should be safe. They still need to agree with PvP by entering quest. PvP public LFMs (with autogroup) should not be allowed.

Of course, there should be also an graphical indicator [!] near to list of members with tooltip

[Uska]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o19CaOSuD8

[Uska]

You are in wrong thread. This thread is in "Suggestions and Ideas". You cannot reject an idea because it can possible steal dev's time (despite on that you don't know, how hard can be to implement this. It can take days of development but it also can take a few minutes playing with configuration and UI settings... you have no idea about this)

Write own thread with topic "Suggestion: fix current content and develop new"

We can reject any idea for any reason we want or even no reason at all you are in no position to dictate terms.

[redspecter23]

I just don't see the idea working. 6 players step into a quest and a brawl starts? Energy Burst even with a cruddy DC kills anyone without evasion before they even zone in completely.

I think you could apply this to specific quests that would allow for 6 distinct entry points so players have at least 3 seconds before they are killed. At that point it's nothing more than an arena inside a quest. Is this what you're looking for? Or are you looking for a friendly fire quest. The quest itself becomes a non factor once you add pvp.

A bit more info from the OP on what he's trying to accomplish would help. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I keep coming back to fastest finger player killing everyone then having to solo the quest or exit out and play fast finger again.

Edit, just reread the OP. Suggestion to start PvP status upon first mob death/door/interactable doesn't change a whole lot. Then it's just a race to that thing before you can pull the trigger.

[Cordovan]

I can't believe I need to go into this again, especially since the people posting in this thread should know better. We do not permit players to attack people who suggest improvements to PvP out of some desire to bully them into silence. The opinion that a segment of the forum-using population is entirely against any development work being used for PvP has been heard loud and clear, and there is no need to go into every PvP suggestion thread and repeat that opinion.

Further comments in this thread along the lines of "devs should never spend time on PvP" will not be permitted, and folks who make such posts will be infracted for trolling. If you do not like PvP, that's fine, feel free to ignore PvP suggestion threads.

[Wanesa]

So I was wondering how to make this suggestion more robust to be clear how it can be used. First of all sorry for my english, the text is long and full of typos and mistakes. Please ask, if you don't understand something.

Definitions:

[b]PVP group - is group of players which can (or want) enter into any quest in PvP mode. Entering such a quest requires the informed consent
- Party can be changed to PvP group outside of quest / wilderness area (inside of public zone)
- PvP group cannot start fight in public zone
- Player should easy find, that he has joined to PvP group.
- PvP group opens quest in Pvp mode, but already opened quest cannot be changed to PvP mode or vice versa. It needs reset first.

Quest in PVP mode - an instance of any DDO quest or wilderness area where the following rules apply
- all rules valid for the adventure inside apply as usual - i mean there should not be any modification in the adventure itself.
- Friendly fire is allowed - you can target and attack any member of the group
- Friendly AoE effect also harm players (wall of fire, burning hands, vail of banshee)
- Positive energy spells are considered as offensive spells for palemasters in undead form.
- I suggest that debuff and non-damage spells casted to players should have reduced duration as if it would be casted by a monster (example: Hold person, disco balls, etc)
- Inside quest in PvP mode, areas around shrines (including alone ressurect shrine) and around entrace are considered as safe area, where friendly fire rules doesn't apply. But you can still be vulnerable by monsters.
- safe areas are also respawn points once they are explored by the player (see below)
- size of safe area is defined: for shrines it is range around shrine where wizard is allowed to swap his spells. For entrance, it is area, where player is able to summon a standard hireling.
- When player is killed and releases, he/she is respawned at one of already explored safe points (entrance is always explored)

Scoring and reward

There is a counter per player which tracks kills and deaths
- Killing a player gives player +1 to the counter
- Death from player or monster gives player -1 to the counter

When quest is finished or chest populated, current values are used to modify reward for the player. First, players are ordered by the kill count

1st highest positive number of the counter
2nd second highest positive number of the counter
3rd other positive numbers or zero
4th other negative numbers
5th second lowest negative number
6th first lowest negative number.

Examples. For two ppl party, winner will have 1st standing, looser will have 6th standing. If both of them were pwned by enemies and both have negative kill counter, winner will have 5th standing.

Reward:
1st +2 lvl chest, one extra gear in chest. +50% XPs
2nd +1 lvl chest, +10% XPs
3rd,4th - no extra reward
5th, -1 lvl chest, -10% XPs
6th, -2 lvl chest, -20% XPs

Bravery bonuses and Streaks
Quest in PVP mode will not give BB and will not break streak. However you will loose you first run.

Favor
Quest in PVP gives favor as usual

Shrine timers
As usual. Casual 5min, Normal 15min, Hard / Elite only once. I suggest to run PVP quests on Casual or Normal level

Named items
No change

Pros:
- group of PvP players gives more chances to arrange rules
- leader can control, which classes and levels will join PvP group. He can make group of barbarians for example to start melee deathmatch
- Choosing right quest enviroment can bring fun to the PvP
- a space to play various PvP games (specified by leader) - hide and seek, chase, team cooperation (3 vs 3), etc
- turning off friendly fire protection can make quest more challenging and realistic which can bring a new aspect to the game even if the group will not focus to the PvP at the first place.

Cons:
- additional work for devs ( i hope, that it is not too much )
- Some quests may be easer than was planned because group in such quest type can't be wiped out - you will respawn inside of the quest. So it needs to find appropriate disadvantage for preventing to abuse this type of the quest to make easier progress. That why I suggest to disable BB ans B.streaks for this quest type.

[Chaios]

So I was wondering how to make this suggestion more robust to be clear how it can be used. First of all sorry for my english, the text is long and full of typos and mistakes. Please ask, if you don't understand something...

This is an interesting idea.

I think a quest where two teams are trying to complete opposite objectives would be cool, or a mechanism for competing to finish the same quest in a multiple-path quest like "The Sunken Sewer".

[biggin]

The main problem I see with any PvP that gives any type of XP or loot is simply that it is extremely exploitable. You could easily go in with 6 guildies, have one kill the other 5 repeatedly for 'top tier' rewards and XP, then just have the next person take a turn.

While having more PvP options isn't a bad thing in and of itself, if you include rewards or XP it will take less then 5 minutes for someone to crunch the numbers and start pulling the slot machine handle.

[danotmano1998]

Personally, I don't enjoy the PvP aspect of the game, but turning on friendly fire would sure make for a very interesting session..

[Wanesa]

The main problem I see with any PvP that gives any type of XP or loot is simply that it is extremely exploitable. You could easily go in with 6 guildies, have one kill the other 5 repeatedly for 'top tier' rewards and XP, then just have the next person take a turn.

While having more PvP options isn't a bad thing in and of itself, if you include rewards or XP it will take less then 5 minutes for someone to crunch the numbers and start pulling the slot machine handle.

XPs are given when your PvP group finish quest. Which quest you can finish in less than 5 minutes with reasonable XPs? Still there is XPs/mins in effect.

[Saekee]

I was thinking of something similar. How about the option of someone entering a quest/dungeon and joining in its defense against players? It is a similar idea (not to derail--just a nuance). So a level 5 could jump into Freshen the Air and then post a special 'LFM' that would be 'PVP LFM'; all joining would then no only attempt to defeat the quest but also the player therein. The player is essentially a mini-boss, so if you take them out you get a chest.
This would probably get severely abused but just a thought.

Anyway I like the OP's suggestion--it is a different way to approach quests and challenges.

[biggin]

XPs are given when your PvP group finish quest. Which quest you can finish in less than 5 minutes with reasonable XPs? Still there is XPs/mins in effect.

I get that, but let's say for example you get what you want. If the top person gets bonus loot and XP, say +2 and 20% for example, you can easily run through say Wiz King by clearing out the main room, killing off who you want, then splitting and taking out the towers in a very quick fashion. Even an epic Von3 takes no more than 10 minutes, and if you start multiplying XP it's going to get out of hand very quickly. Shadow Crypt, Bloody Crypt, anything less than level 9, honestly there are too many to count.

Are you saying there is no bonus if you take longer than 5 minutes? Anytime you add bonus loot or XP to a quest that is in effect controlled by the players you will open up exploits in a big way.

[Vanquishedfo]

Honestly friendly fire should just be made the way it works, and then with that added need for players to be tactical with aoe effects I have little doubt rebalancing especially high end content currently loaded with bloated HP punching bags could be done.

Not only that but it could finally end loot drama as if people really want to argue over something they can duel for it then and there with the party to watch on.

Sure it will put sword swingers under the service of the casters, which would be great for RP atmoshpere as far as that aspect goes. Self made gawds should be able to rule over and be masters of the warriors.

[Ungood]

Well, they already have the Brawling Arena's for people who want to get a group together, and just test their skill, or kill at will and have some fun.

As such, If they wanted to do this, they would be better served to simply add more maps to the existing PvP Arena they have.

However, not to say your idea is bad, but I would wager that the existing PvP settings they have get used so infrequently that investing time into making this happen would amount to yet another dead ended game feature.

Or players would find some way to abuse the mechanic, and get insane exp, like dual boxing, and just slaughtering some F2P alt account they made (or 5 of them) for a +50% exp and extra loot chest. Even for people who may use it legitimately The Novelty among friends may hold for a little while, or it may remain an easy way to Power level a friend, "Sure come on, kill me a bit and get +50% exp"

But, I would wager that which would lead to it getting nerfed, and it would go back to no one using it again. The Current Arena provides group battles, alternate starting area's, and the freedom to PvP without the feeling of losing loot and exp if you don't do well.

[fmalfeas]

Honestly friendly fire should just be made the way it works, and then with that added need for players to be tactical with aoe effects I have little doubt rebalancing especially high end content currently loaded with bloated HP punching bags could be done.

Not only that but it could finally end loot drama as if people really want to argue over something they can duel for it then and there with the party to watch on.

Sure it will put sword swingers under the service of the casters, which would be great for RP atmoshpere as far as that aspect goes. Self made gawds should be able to rule over and be masters of the warriors.

The problem with that being on is that while in tabletop, you can toss that fireball 100' to nuke your enemies from afar, in DDO, often you're much, much closer than that. It would become extremely difficult to use most AoE spells at all in the majority of cases, without killing yourself. And while that is a truism in tabletop (it's not really that wise to chuck a fireball in the pantry room of the crumbling ruins, no matter how many enraged orcs are crammed in there) DDO often has far higher numbers of mobs than tabletop, with far higher HP and saves. So a lot of the more surgical spells won't be SP effecient enough, and you'll run out of steam with surprising speed.

[biggin]

Now what would seem like fun to me is a 3 vs. 3 (or any combo thereof) mechanic where you would in effect become mobs. You could take 3 players and make them red names and put them in a quest and mobs would see them as mobs. Then 3-5 players would battle through the quest and would have to kill the normal boss plus the other team. No extra loot, no XP bonus, just like PvP is now with and added bonus of an in quest mechanic.

I know Legion has put on PvP tournaments in the past where the winners would receive 25 of each large ingredient when they were still fairly relevant. You could have player sponsored tournaments where quest completion would net some players some gear or collectibles. It could be fun, challenging, and I see no way to exploit it since one side would have to kill the other to complete with no bonus of any kind.

[Shadow2024]

what if there is ALREADY pvp in ddo?

yes, you gonna tell me about Taverns but....i think you missed the team vs team feature.

Create a party up to 6 members, yes even public area works.
Meet anotherparty (or just one member in another party!), select him and choose "Challenge Party"

Both team will get a window to agree on terms (there is even a capture the flag) once everyone agreed, the fight start in a closed area.

there, now everyone is happy, there is pvp and dev won't have to work on it

[Wanesa]

what if there is ALREADY pvp in ddo?

yes, you gonna tell me about Taverns but....i think you missed the team vs team feature.



I know about it. But there is still missing one thing. Motivation. Why to do this? In my suggestion, you can still get chests and XPs like in ordinary quest. It is only about allowing friendly fire and counting kills (challenge party doesn't count kills and has no reward)

It is not only for PvP only. Parties playing true RPG might appreciate slightly more realism in the game. Zergers can also appreciate such mode - zerg groups are parties with up to six soloists - this mode can add some element of challenge and fun while they are racing for first chest or the fastest quest completion.

[Saekee]

Now what would seem like fun to me is a 3 vs. 3 (or any combo thereof) mechanic where you would in effect become mobs. You could take 3 players and make them red names and put them in a quest and mobs would see them as mobs. Then 3-5 players would battle through the quest and would have to kill the normal boss plus the other team. No extra loot, no XP bonus, just like PvP is now with and added bonus of an in quest mechanic.

I know Legion has put on PvP tournaments in the past where the winners would receive 25 of each large ingredient when they were still fairly relevant. You could have player sponsored tournaments where quest completion would net some players some gear or collectibles. It could be fun, challenging, and I see no way to exploit it since one side would have to kill the other to complete with no bonus of any kind.

Yes! this is similar to my suggestion above--somehow create it so that players become one of the red names. Unfortunately it could get abused but maybe it could be prevented.