PDA

View Full Version : Discuss your ideas for the best way to handle zoning and pvp.


Mutant
02-15-2007, 05:53 PM
<p>Many of us believe the upcoming "zoning disabled while engaged" changes will not help much and possibly make things worse. Other things like "zerging" will also be affected by this change, but for this topic let's focus on zoning/flying during pvp.</p><p>IMO, as of now the dynamics for zoning through doors is the best atm. It seems to me that this new change really is just going to make the dynamics of doors work more like griffs. I think making all other means of zoning/flying to function just like doors <b>instead</b> would be a better idea all around.</p><p><span style="font-size: xx-small">Scenario 1 with changes in LU32 - Player A engages player B - B zones or flies. </span><span style="font-size: xx-small">- Player A cannot chase....</span> <span style="font-size: xx-small">- Group C zones/flies in - Group C rolls Player A - A can't evac or zone even thought they did not engage Group C. </span>  <span style="font-size: xx-small">Scenario 1 currently with doors/bells - Player A engages player B - B zones through a door/bell.</span> <span style="font-size: xx-small">- Player A can chase - If B engaged before zoning A can attack him. Unless it's on a dock with immunity.</span> <span style="font-size: xx-small">  Player A can chase - If B did not engage before zoning A can attempt again after B's immune is up.</span> <span style="font-size: xx-small">- Group C zones in</span> <span style="font-size: xx-small">  Group C does not see Player A - because A is pursuing his original target of B </span></p><p><span style="font-size: xx-small">Scenario 1 currently with griffs </span> <span style="font-size: xx-small">- Player A engages player B - B flies away on griff not engaging.</span> <span style="font-size: xx-small">- Player A cannot chase.... </span> <span style="font-size: xx-small">- Group C flies in </span> <span style="font-size: xx-small">  Group C rolls Player A - A can't fly even though they did not engage Group C.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: xx-small">Scenario 1 with my proposed idea</span> <span style="font-size: xx-small">- Player A engages player B - B zones or flies. </span><span style="font-size: xx-small">- Player A can chase by door/carpet/cloud/bell or griff - If B engaged before zoning or flying, A can attack him. </span> <span style="font-size: xx-small">  Player A can chase by door/carpet/cloud/bell or griff  - If B did not engage before zoning or flying, A can attempt again after B's immune is up</span> <span style="font-size: xx-small">- Group C zones/flies in</span> <span style="font-size: xx-small">  Group C does not see Player A - because A is pursuing his original target of B</span></p><p> Essentially just make the dynamics of "zoning/flying/clouds/carpets/bells" all behave exactly the same during pvp. (like doors do) So that if you engaged, you are able to chase them by any method.... but still keep the existing dynamics of hate so that you are not able to zone/fly again if you engaged. This will still allow some safety for the ones who do not engage, while not impairing the ones who choose to pvp.</p><p><b>Additional tweaks</b> 10 second immunity after landing on any platform/tower from flying, if not engaged before flight. If engaged in pvp, no zoning allowed into and instance. If engaged in pvp and zoned into a dock immunity area through bells, you do not have instant immunity. Make carpet transits function just like clouds, not lockable or temporarily disabled. </p><p><b>We know the game best so lets give devs the best ideas to handle pvp and zoning.</b> </p>

chrystolr
02-15-2007, 06:10 PM
Changes from LU 32 are fine. Nothing needs to be discussed.

Wytie
02-15-2007, 06:52 PM
<cite>chrystolred wrote:</cite><blockquote>Changes from LU 32 are fine. Nothing needs to be discussed. </blockquote><p> I disagree!</p><p>The OP has some vaid problems, no matter what pvp happens near zone line and such, so the excuss " dont fight near the lines" is total BS. We are on a pvp servers fights happen all over and SOE needs to address all the possiable problems or just send it live and let the exploiters figure it out <img src="/smilies/2e207fad049d4d292f60607f80f05768.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

Bozidar
02-19-2007, 12:57 PM
<p>1) when someone's opponent zones, you no longer are in pvp combat.</p><p>2) When someone's opponent carpets away, you should be removed from pvp combat, and allowed to chase.</p><p>3) The upcoming changes are awesome.</p>

Fearborn
02-19-2007, 06:22 PM
<p>Current situation - If a player engages, they cannot use griff/carpet etc, this is good.</p><p>If a player engages, they should not be able to use zone, this will be good.</p><p>If a player fails to engage and uses griff/carpet, the attacking player should immediately be removed from combat, like when an opponent zones away.</p><p>The new changes will affect the current hot spots, as guards will probably be used more as a defensive measure.</p><p>It will also reduce the amount of zone area ganking, which everyone wants really.  It will also favour those who have better in-combat run speed.</p>

Greenion
02-19-2007, 07:58 PM
<span style="color: #339900">do not allow zoning or zonal modes of travel (clouds, griffs) if a PC is in combat with the PC trying to zone or use clouds or griffs.</span>

Radigazt
02-20-2007, 01:22 AM
<cite>Fearborn wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Current situation - If a player engages, they cannot use griff/carpet etc, this is good.</p><p>If a player engages, they should not be able to use zone, this will be good.</p><p>If a player fails to engage and uses griff/carpet, the attacking player should immediately be removed from combat, like when an opponent zones away.</p><p>The new changes will affect the current hot spots, as guards will probably be used more as a defensive measure.</p><p>It will also reduce the amount of zone area ganking, which everyone wants really.  It will also favour those who have better in-combat run speed.</p></blockquote><p> It would be great if when someone griff's away the attacking player were removed from combat.  But honestly, it's the whole in-combat vs. out-of-combat mechanic that's causing many of the problems in the first place.  I'm fine with the power/health recharging at slower rates, but forced slower movement speeds in-combat are really anti-pvp.  I'd like to see runspeeds remain the same while engaged in PvP.  </p><p>These changes are improvements most likely, but not great ones.  I'd also say that if Player A attacks Player B, and Player B zones away ... then Player A ought to be able to zone after him.  I'm not sure if that'll be possible with the current changes.  If it isn't ... then Doorways will become even more the true Gods of PvP as they give immunity and also prevent pursuit.  Now every zone will become almost an instance in that it'll be a free way to escape PvP.  </p><p>I'd rather SOE start implementing rules that encourage PvP, not reward running away.  </p>

Kurindor_Mythecnea
02-20-2007, 02:43 AM
<cite>Radigazt wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Fearborn wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Current situation - If a player engages, they cannot use griff/carpet etc, this is good.</p><p>If a player engages, they should not be able to use zone, this will be good.</p><p>If a player fails to engage and uses griff/carpet, the attacking player should immediately be removed from combat, like when an opponent zones away.</p><p>The new changes will affect the current hot spots, as guards will probably be used more as a defensive measure.</p><p>It will also reduce the amount of zone area ganking, which everyone wants really.  It will also favour those who have better in-combat run speed.</p></blockquote><p> It would be great if when someone griff's away the attacking player were removed from combat.  But honestly, it's the whole in-combat vs. out-of-combat mechanic that's causing many of the problems in the first place.  I'm fine with the power/health recharging at slower rates, but forced slower movement speeds in-combat are really anti-pvp.  I'd like to see runspeeds remain the same while engaged in PvP.  </p><p><span style="color: #cc0000">These changes are improvements most likely, but not great ones.  I'd also say that if Player A attacks Player B, and Player B zones away ... then Player A ought to be able to zone after him.</span>  I'm not sure if that'll be possible with the current changes.  If it isn't ... then Doorways will become even more the true Gods of PvP as they give immunity and also prevent pursuit.  Now every zone will become almost an instance in that it'll be a free way to escape PvP.  </p><p>I'd rather SOE start implementing rules that encourage PvP, not reward running away.  </p></blockquote>Hehehe...that's the exact debilitation they're implementing. This favors those with in-combat runspeed...furies, monks, rangers (don't think mystics but not totally sure). But really, all this will do is alter the aspect of the game. Nobody will want to fight you unless they really don't have anything to lose, and for many, keeping their titles is one of them. The only area where you find those who roam is during < low-T3 PvP. Higher up, people camp zone lines til they can mass ludicrous amounts. I guess, mainly, you will want to avoid traps like the aforementioned unless you have at least 2 to root and some to snare. It's more of a increase to Qeynosian utility than anything else, TBH. And in reality, my "supposed' nobody is just high-T3 PvP; I suppose no mid-T3ers have anything worth coveting in their own eye. Really though, what I want in the LU is something that balances insta-kill assurances. There doesn't need to be some "feature" of a class that you are made to wait 15 minutes to use for some ludicrous amount that makes a super-majority of those title-holders denigrate the relevance to longevity and battlefield management ranks <i>could</i> have -- something that would truly show a warrior (and with this, I am pretty much inferring to a centralization upon the function of HT -- it ought stand between something like SOT and Assassin's Blade [with SOT also receiving a nerf]*).. I think the change would be good if they limited in-combat runspeed to 20% and gave the classes without some runspeed a 12.5% snare earlier on (Inquisitor, Shadowknight, Bruiser; it's really just like a Maligned type of technique -- managing to encumber your opponents motor skills). * - Default Direct Damage Strength Assassin's Blade: Master I 699-1165            - 180 s Strike of Thunder: Master I 354-589              -   15 s Harm Touch: Master I 749-1249            - 900 s Ball of Fire: Master I 392-728              -     9 s Harm Touch: Graded to Strike of Thunder (1/60 potent) 12.48-20.82        -   15 s Harm Touch: Graded to Assassin's Blade (1/5 potent) 149.8-249.8        - 180 s Assassin's Blade: Graded to Strike of Thunder (1/12th potent) 58.25-97.08        -   15 s Strike of Thunder: Graded to Ball of Fire (1/1.6 potent) 221.25-368.125  -     9 s Harm Touch: Graded to Ball of Fire (1/100 potent) 7.49-12.49          -     9 s Assassin's Blade: Graded to Ball of Fire (1/20 potent) 34.95-58.25        -     9 s A supposed "Battle Mage Caster Tank", some particular class completely obliterates a footing that really ought have some plateau to it. Both the Warriors and the Priests are core sectors known for enduring survival. What I conceived as an approach attempted was to divvy up damage according to capacity for longevity. For Priests like Fury, who have fast casted Heal Spells and Shadowknights who really ought only sustain a mitigation con less than the two other plate tanks who can't push DPS like Shadowknights can (i.e. move Berserkers to 20% mit, and Guardians to 25% mit in their respective defensive stances. The whole significance of this noted contemplation lies in the realm of resting upon a perfect equilibrium between, at least, the classes meant for the relative self-sustaining. SOT needs to be at least 1/10th the power of the correlated DD Mage, <i><b>not</b></i> 1/1.6th. Harm Touch should be moved to 1/15th the power of the other relative high DD classes, with a timer of 45 seconds. I think these movements will even out two hardcore power classes beyond the far-spectrum DPS condition (T5-T7). Honestly, pay attention to the post I've just made, as I truly think it holds advocation that could definitely make the PvP experience a lot more enjoyable, relishing, and overall encompassing of an atmosphere more satisfying when you're able to have some awesome fights with these classes without the afterthought of "power class". (P.S. Also, I've been curious as to whether or not the perception of other gear not equipped while mentored ought require addressing [that which degrades the item condition consideration to your current mentored level] -- is this a bug, or no?)

Mutant
02-20-2007, 01:51 PM
<p>Yes I see a good idea from all of your comments that would be even simpler. 1) The obvious no zoning while engaged. 2) If a player zones/flys away from you without engaging and you are engaged, then you should go out of combat. (no more than 5 secs after)     Then you should be able to zone or fly to chase them, since your are out of combat now.       - <b>If Zoning, </b>you will have immunity on the other side and have to wait once again to try to engage the runner (as it currently is)       - <b>If Flying,</b> you can attempt to catch this person on another platform and hope they engage as well. And also I think a 10 second immune after landing on a platform would be a good idea, to deter platform camping and getting ganked before toons render on your screen. Does this sound good? I think it would promote more chases and pvp, and less getting stuck.</p>

Badaxe Ba
02-20-2007, 03:36 PM
<p>In some ways the upcoming proposed change to the inability to zone while in combat has some good points and some bad points.  these have been discussed to tedium on another thread.</p><p>Some focus could be spent on the griffon stations or other means of in zone transport.  I do believe an instigator being stuck in combat while their target flies/rides away does suffer a disadvantage, however, you've chosen that target knowing they could choose the option to run.  To say that this is a handicap is true, however it is a chosen one by the initiator to combat.  Could this time be adjusted a bit?  Maybe.  But not much.  Strategy and tactics play a part in PvP, else we are foredoomed to become a first person shooter context.</p><p>When a target zones out that you have attacked, you do drop out of combat.  However, if you have a DOT or other timed attack still on the target and they reenter the zone, you are immediately put back into combat.  This doesn't need to be changed really, because you have the option to cancel these attacks if they are still on their timers.</p><p>A more intriguing and to me a more pressing problem is the inability to mentor and protect yourself.  There must be some way to make this more equitable, and would certainly help spread out PvP action, as with some mentoring, higher levels can participate with lower levels without assuming an unfair advantage with equipment/skills.  I personally think this would also go a long way towards alleviating OOG/OOR healing as well.  It seems certain that at least a part of the problem is that any healer has no wish to have a free-kill-here sign pinned to them in order to 'play' with a friend.  Removal of this is to me more detrimental and has to be viewed as a major handicap.  To those who say 'make an alt', I would respond that that would be the same as saying to you 'level up', or tell your friend he needs to play more so he can catch up with you.  Allowance has to be made for new players to come into the game and learn the basics, without there friend/s saying sorry dude, I can't mentor down and die, so you are on your own.</p>

munos
02-20-2007, 05:20 PM
We this is what I see happening. Groups will put one or 2 out some where by a zone line and once they are engaged others will zone in possible raid size and now when they come in and are overwhelmed by a group or groups that they have no chance in getting away from b/c of no zoning. I think its bad and it will make choke points again like the docks were. Just dont take the bait if they are close is all i can say

Kurindor_Mythecnea
02-20-2007, 06:18 PM
<cite>soruevol wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Yes I see a good idea from all of your comments that would be even simpler. 1) The obvious no zoning while engaged. 2) If a player zones/flys away from you without engaging and you are engaged, then you should go out of combat. (no more than 5 secs after)     Then you should be able to zone or fly to chase them, since your are out of combat now.       - <b>If Zoning, </b>you will have immunity on the other side and have to wait once again to try to engage the runner (as it currently is)       - <b>If Flying,</b> you can attempt to catch this person on another platform and hope they engage as well. And also I think a 10 second immune after landing on a platform would be a good idea, to deter platform camping and getting ganked before toons render on your screen. Does this sound good? I think it would promote more chases and pvp, and less getting stuck.</p></blockquote>Lol. You don't want more chases. More chases is what isn't fun, because a large, large majority of the time, they result in the opposition actually getting away. I think, really, what we just need is the harmonizing of class systems. No zoning would be fine, I think, if a suggestion of mine was taken. O_o

Devilsbane
02-21-2007, 05:06 AM
<p>One simple solution to the zone hopping problem would be the following. Once an engagement is enter by both parties. If one of them decides to run for the zone point. Penalize the zoner(s) with a loss and the costs. Reward the other party with a win and the honors.</p>

Ashen-Shugar
02-21-2007, 10:41 AM
<cite>Fearborn wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Current situation - If a player engages, they cannot use griff/carpet etc, this is good.</p><p>If a player engages, they should not be able to use zone, this will be good.</p><p><b>If a player fails to engage and uses griff/carpet, the attacking player should immediately be removed from combat, like when an opponent zones away.</b></p><p>The new changes will affect the current hot spots, as guards will probably be used more as a defensive measure.</p><p>It will also reduce the amount of zone area ganking, which everyone wants really.  It will also favour those who have better in-combat run speed.</p></blockquote>Totally agree .. this is a PvP server .. it should be hard to run away not p!ss easy like it is atm. People who run from fights all the time of which there are many on Nagafen should not be allowed to gain an advantage . 

Ashen-Shugar
02-21-2007, 10:42 AM
<cite>munos wrote:</cite><blockquote>We this is what I see happening. Groups will put one or 2 out some where by a zone line and once they are engaged others will zone in possible raid size and now when they come in and are overwhelmed by a group or groups that they have no chance in getting away from b/c of no zoning. I think its bad and it will make choke points again like the docks were. Just dont take the bait if they are close is all i can say</blockquote>

Mutant
02-21-2007, 01:26 PM
<cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>soruevol wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Yes I see a good idea from all of your comments that would be even simpler. 1) The obvious no zoning while engaged. 2) If a player zones/flys away from you without engaging and you are engaged, then you should go out of combat. (no more than 5 secs after)     Then you should be able to zone or fly to chase them, since your are out of combat now.       - <b>If Zoning, </b>you will have immunity on the other side and have to wait once again to try to engage the runner (as it currently is)       - <b>If Flying,</b> you can attempt to catch this person on another platform and hope they engage as well. And also I think a 10 second immune after landing on a platform would be a good idea, to deter platform camping and getting ganked before toons render on your screen. Does this sound good? I think it would promote more chases and pvp, and less getting stuck.</p></blockquote>Lol. You don't want more chases. More chases is what isn't fun, because a large, large majority of the time, they result in the opposition actually getting away. I think, really, what we just need is the harmonizing of class systems. No zoning would be fine, I think, if a suggestion of mine was taken. O_o </blockquote><p>Yes we do want more chases. As the current dynamics are, it is very easy to get away already. Why would you not want a chance to chase them? Everyone can get away too easy. I don't think any one enjoys being stuck at a cloud station/griff tower because they took one whack at someone.</p><p>Only thing lu32 will do is make zone lines keeping you stuck the same as platforms do, which equals less pvp while the runners can get away even easier.</p><p>No zoning while both are engaged is good, but if you attack someone and they run not engaging, you should get at least one chance to chase them, even if it be from a platform, because doors let you do that already.</p>

Cogg
02-21-2007, 07:39 PM
It seems pretty straightforward to me.  If a person would be dishonorably fleeing by zoning, they cannot zone.  In fact, I still stand by my idea that instead of changing the zoning issue, make it so that if a person flees dishonorably, they LOSE infamy... that way it is up to the person whether its worth zoning or not.  Oh, and anyone higher than you in the infamy tree should provide infamy, not just 2 titles either way.  The only other thing i would change is that the permanent immunity for anyone who evac's should be eliminated.

JohnDoe0
02-21-2007, 08:09 PM
You zone, you die.

Kurindor_Mythecnea
02-21-2007, 10:37 PM
<cite>soruevol wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurindor_Mythecnea wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>soruevol wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Yes I see a good idea from all of your comments that would be even simpler. 1) The obvious no zoning while engaged. 2) If a player zones/flys away from you without engaging and you are engaged, then you should go out of combat. (no more than 5 secs after)     Then you should be able to zone or fly to chase them, since your are out of combat now.       - <b>If Zoning, </b>you will have immunity on the other side and have to wait once again to try to engage the runner (as it currently is)       - <b>If Flying,</b> you can attempt to catch this person on another platform and hope they engage as well. And also I think a 10 second immune after landing on a platform would be a good idea, to deter platform camping and getting ganked before toons render on your screen. Does this sound good? I think it would promote more chases and pvp, and less getting stuck.</p></blockquote>Lol. You don't want more chases. More chases is what isn't fun, because a large, large majority of the time, they result in the opposition actually getting away. I think, really, what we just need is the harmonizing of class systems. No zoning would be fine, I think, if a suggestion of mine was taken. O_o </blockquote><p>Yes we do want more chases. As the current dynamics are, it is very easy to get away already. Why would you not want a chance to chase them? Everyone can get away too easy. I don't think any one enjoys being stuck at a cloud station/griff tower because they took one whack at someone.</p><p>Only thing lu32 will do is make zone lines keeping you stuck the same as platforms do, which equals less pvp while the runners can get away even easier.</p><p>No zoning while both are engaged is good, but if you attack someone and they run not engaging, you should get at least one chance to chase them, even if it be from a platform, because doors let you do that already.</p></blockquote>I completely disagree. There doesn't need to be more chasing, there needs to be more engaging. Trying to solve for a greater factor of pursuit is ludicrous.

Greenion
02-22-2007, 12:12 AM
<cite>JohnDoe001 wrote:</cite><blockquote>You zone, you die. </blockquote> <b><u><span style="color: #00ff00">.</span></u></b>

HerbertWalker
02-22-2007, 12:12 AM
<p>Eh, don't you guys think that a fix to the Thugs and Swarms needs to go along with this update?</p><p>ehhmm  just a thought  <img src="/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>