Patch Notes - Hope for the future?

[Angelus_dead]

Well, it's probably not a bad thing to introduce PvP as a small minigame for the handful of players who could enjoy it depending on the time it takes to make the small additions. However, it would be a mistake to invest too many resources into it.

And it's actually a good thing to allow simple PVP so that players can test game mechanics, which are frequently undocumented, wrongly documented, or buggy in behavior.

But note that this objective of PVP would actually be undermined if they go about making a separate set of rules that apply in PVP encounters.

[DoctorWhofan]

And it's actually a good thing to allow simple PVP so that players can test game mechanics, which are frequently undocumented, wrongly documented, or buggy in behavior.

But note that this objective of PVP would actually be undermined if they go about making a separate set of rules that apply in PVP encounters.

It's the last sentance that frightens me more than anything. And experiancing PvP at its worse first hand, it makes me very reluctant to have it here. Because of that.

[Dretharis]

And it's actually a good thing to allow simple PVP so that players can test game mechanics, which are frequently undocumented, wrongly documented, or buggy in behavior.

But note that this objective of PVP would actually be undermined if they go about making a separate set of rules that apply in PVP encounters.

It's the last sentance that frightens me more than anything. And experiancing PvP at its worse first hand, it makes me very reluctant to have it here. Because of that.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting a seperate set of game rules, though. I agree, it's a bad idea. Why is this an issue?

How about...and I am killing myself for saying this...when you go to the arena style combat (not the taverns. They are fine as is) A window comes up asking if you want to wager. THis would happen AFTER you load upto the arena. you would be behind a blue barrier. If both teams agree, a "trade" window pops with one slot for an item (non bound, of course) and a place to put plat. when everybody's done (the game will want make sure that people put similiar priced items or at least plat in the window before continuing.) a 20 second countdown then barrier drops then fight.

However, I can see how it could be exploited.

Dueling can be initiated from anywhere. When you request a duel with someone, a window pops up with a "negotiation" screen which identifies the party members+levels on each side, as well as the type of match and the arena selected. Why not just tack on an item window to that, instead of making the complex additions you suggest?

If they don't want to bet, they simply don't put anything into the window. In the case of teams, party leader has control of the item window, as well as the negotiation screen. No need to add in a blue barrier, and it doesn't seem right to negotiate the terms of a wager *after* you're in the arena.

[Angelus_dead]

I don't think anyone here is suggesting a seperate set of game rules, though. I agree, it's a bad idea. Why is this an issue?

Many people suggest it, and many more make requests that could only be realistically accomplished by doing so.

[Dretharis]

Many people suggest it, and many more make requests that could only be realistically accomplished by doing so.

No one here is suggesting it, nor are any suggestions being made here which require said PvP-only mechanics changes.

The potentially beneficial mechanics change I mentioned (stealth) is of questionable necessity in the first place, by my own admission. Even if it were changed in the manner we had both suggested, it would be an overall change and improvement to the game.

Just because many are suggesting it doesn't mean it's the right answer, nor that it's the direction the game will take.

By the way, I actually specifically changed "anyone's" to "anyone here" with that edit