So, as we have seen, theres a heck of alot of tension,and different opinions on how to bring balance to pvp / leveling in this game.I'm curious and interested in getting thoughts/ opinions on something.
What if there were 2 servers. One for pvp,One for non pvp. I'll clarify further in detail what the differences would/ could be.
Most importantly would be the fact of how does one *choose* how they want to play. They simply pick one of two servers ( pvp or leveling) and stay there, permanently. One Time choice.
On the pvp server there would be no xp lock, no pvp protection. The ladder could possibly remain an *opt in* There would be guild conflicts and the bounty board.
The leveling side would have no need for protection as one could not be attacked.There would be no bounty board, no guild conflicts either.Guild Conflicts would only be accessable on the PvP server.
Arena would be playable on both servers, however players cannot combat against one another across opposite servers. Ie: pvp side has their own arena, leveling has their own.
Basically it splits the game in two. Two worlds. Se, elites, titans, would spawn accordingly on each world.
To prevent abuse items would not be able to be sent or sold across servers, nor would gold, fsp , etc.
Communication between players on different servers would need to be worked out by hcs,possibly with a global chat.
Would this be good or bad? Who knows, I'm curious on the responses tho, since as it seems the game is in decline with two sides fighting over what they want and how they want to play.
Edit: Will add suggestions. Tweaks here:
Moving to a Non- pvp server would strip all pvp medals
Separating PvP and Leveling via 2 servers
Started by Maehdros, Aug 27 2012 01:11
-
This topic is locked
83 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 27 August 2012 - 01:19
Sounds good idea but can i play on both servers switch between them or something ? oops you just edited 
nvm on this question lol
It seems so complicated to do all these, maybe if HCs insists to make new FS world would be cool to make it open for pvp like you said above about pvp server
nvm on this question lolIt seems so complicated to do all these, maybe if HCs insists to make new FS world would be cool to make it open for pvp like you said above about pvp server
#3
DragonLord
-
- New Members
-
- 3,081 posts
Veteran
FALLEN SWORD
Pardoux
Level 1,558
- Australia
Posted 27 August 2012 - 01:20
So, as we have seen, theres a heck of alot of tension,and different opinions on how to bring balance to pvp / leveling in this game.I'm curious and interested in getting thoughts/ opinions on something.
What if there were 2 servers. One for pvp,One for non pvp. I'll clarify further in detail what the differences would/ could be.
Most importantly would be the fact of how does one *choose* how they want to play. They simply pick one of two servers ( pvp or leveling) and stay there, permanently. One Time choice.
On the pvp server there would be no xp lock, no pvp protection. The ladder could possibly remain an *opt in* There would be guild conflicts and the bounty board.
The leveling side would have no need for protection as one could not be attacked.There would be no bounty board, no guild conflicts either.Guild Conflicts would only be accessable on the PvP server.
Arena would be playable on both servers, however players cannot combat against one another across opposite servers. Ie: pvp side has their own arena, leveling has their own.
Basically it splits the game in two. Two worlds. Se, elites, titans, would spawn accordingly on each world.
To prevent abuse items would not be able to be sent or sold across servers, nor would gold, fsp , etc.
Communication between players on different servers would need to be worked out by hcs,possibly with a global chat.
Would this be good or bad? Who knows, I'm curious on the responses tho, since as it seems the game is in decline with two sides fighting over what they want and how they want to play.
I actually like this idea (there's a surprise LOL). The only (initial) concerns I'd have would be :-
1. The work required by the cows to split the world in 2 (in effect)
2. Increased (perhaps) running costs for them
3. You say guild conflicts stay on the PvP side (naturally), but what about GvG which is pretty much harmless
4. If no GvG either, what about existing RP items on folk who move to the Non-PvP world
5. Permanent choice of world ? - dunno about that - what if some folk chose non-pvp and then decide they want to dabble ? - Maybe have some sort of abuse-preventing system to stop them attacking folk and then immediately jumping back ? - maybe something like "you have entered the PvP version of FallenSword - you are now here for a minimum time period of (insert as applicable) and this will be extended by (insert as applicable) each time you attack someone" disclaimer ?
The basic premise tho, I like
(see, we can agree on stuff LOL)
#4
Posted 27 August 2012 - 01:27
So, as we have seen, theres a heck of alot of tension,and different opinions on how to bring balance to pvp / leveling in this game.I'm curious and interested in getting thoughts/ opinions on something.
What if there were 2 servers. One for pvp,One for non pvp. I'll clarify further in detail what the differences would/ could be.
Most importantly would be the fact of how does one *choose* how they want to play. They simply pick one of two servers ( pvp or leveling) and stay there, permanently. One Time choice.
On the pvp server there would be no xp lock, no pvp protection. The ladder could possibly remain an *opt in* There would be guild conflicts and the bounty board.
The leveling side would have no need for protection as one could not be attacked.There would be no bounty board, no guild conflicts either.Guild Conflicts would only be accessable on the PvP server.
Arena would be playable on both servers, however players cannot combat against one another across opposite servers. Ie: pvp side has their own arena, leveling has their own.
Basically it splits the game in two. Two worlds. Se, elites, titans, would spawn accordingly on each world.
To prevent abuse items would not be able to be sent or sold across servers, nor would gold, fsp , etc.
Communication between players on different servers would need to be worked out by hcs,possibly with a global chat.
Would this be good or bad? Who knows, I'm curious on the responses tho, since as it seems the game is in decline with two sides fighting over what they want and how they want to play.
I actually like this idea (there's a surprise LOL). The only (initial) concerns I'd have would be :-
1. The work required by the cows to split the world in 2 (in effect)
2. Increased (perhaps) running costs for them
3. You say guild conflicts stay on the PvP side (naturally), but what about GvG which is pretty much harmless
4. If no GvG either, what about existing RP items on folk who move to the Non-PvP world
5. Permanent choice of world ? - dunno about that - what if some folk chose non-pvp and then decide they want to dabble ? - Maybe have some sort of abuse-preventing system to stop them attacking folk and then immediately jumping back ? - maybe something like "you have entered the PvP version of FallenSword - you are now here for a minimum time period of (insert as applicable) and this will be extended by (insert as applicable) each time you attack someone" disclaimer ?
The basic premise tho, I like
1: very little.
2: no additional running costs, perhaps some additional HDD space for the DB if anything.
3: attack player is attack player. GvG can still be used for malicious purposes.
4: rp items would be transferred, as would ladder items etc, everything that is in your BP, (not tagged).
The biggest concern I have is what happens to guilds. Some guilds have people who pvp and people who want nothing to do with it. What happens to those guilds, those tagged items etc.
#5
fs_scrogger
fs_scrogger
-
- Guests
Posted 27 August 2012 - 01:37
On the surface it seems so simple to break us into 2 groups, however I play ALL aspects of the game. Am I to be punished because I want to PvP for fun and gold, Level for better buffs and gear, make potions when I have time, farm often and SE hunt as much as possible. I don't want to choose one over the other. I like my guild and don't want to have to choose whether i stay here or there.
I guess what I am trying to say is that we are all so intertwined amongst each other splitting the game up would in fact kill it immediately.
I guess what I am trying to say is that we are all so intertwined amongst each other splitting the game up would in fact kill it immediately.
#6
Posted 27 August 2012 - 01:41
On the surface it seems so simple to break us into 2 groups, however I play ALL aspects of the game. Am I to be punished because I want to PvP for fun and gold, Level for better buffs and gear, make potions when I have time, farm often and SE hunt as much as possible. I don't want to choose one over the other. I like my guild and don't want to have to choose whether i stay here or there.
I guess what I am trying to say is that we are all so intertwined amongst each other splitting the game up would in fact kill it immediately.
You could do all that stuff on the pvp server still
#7
Posted 27 August 2012 - 01:44
Feel the need to point out the poor state of the community if people are actually considering this..
I agree with scrogger, but I would prolly try and recruit most of my leveling friends over to the PvP server. If they got robbed or sumtin it would just be more fun for me
I agree with scrogger, but I would prolly try and recruit most of my leveling friends over to the PvP server. If they got robbed or sumtin it would just be more fun for me
#8
DragonLord
-
- New Members
-
- 3,081 posts
Veteran
FALLEN SWORD
Pardoux
Level 1,558
- Australia
Posted 27 August 2012 - 01:45
The biggest concern I have is what happens to guilds. Some guilds have people who pvp and people who want nothing to do with it. What happens to those guilds, those tagged items etc.
A very good point, and that could be the nail in the coffin right there ...
#9
fortville
-
- Members
-
- 295 posts
Member
- United States of America
Posted 27 August 2012 - 01:47
Seems to me that it would just be simpler to leave it on one server and PvPer's just attack other PvPer's which is essentially what you would be doing by splitting it off. You would have no more targets there than you would here.
#10
Posted 27 August 2012 - 01:58
Yes, would be nice to have your cake and eat it too, wouldn't it? :roll:
I'm actually all for it. At first I thought it was a terrible idea, but I'm so sick to death of all the bickering I've come around. But this is not a suggestion that "all the pvp'ers just attack each other." That would be a permanent opt out with nothing lost. If you're going to split Fallen Sword into the pvp's and the pvp not's, the not's should lose SOMETHING for the privilege of continuing on their merry way- from now on in the solitude they've so often craved and demanded.
As far as skipping between the two, I favor that, but tentatively. It would be hard to keep it from being abused.
I don't think GvG should be on the "levelers" side, I think if you want a nice peaceful pasture to wander off to then that's what it should be. Or possibly put GvG as is on that side, and tweak it on the pvp side to include exp loss...the arena the same. There should be greater rewards for more risk though, and reduced ones for tamer pursuits.
For guilds that have both types of people, pick a side and get on it, individually if necessary. There are things to be gained here, some will be lost.
I'm actually all for it. At first I thought it was a terrible idea, but I'm so sick to death of all the bickering I've come around. But this is not a suggestion that "all the pvp'ers just attack each other." That would be a permanent opt out with nothing lost. If you're going to split Fallen Sword into the pvp's and the pvp not's, the not's should lose SOMETHING for the privilege of continuing on their merry way- from now on in the solitude they've so often craved and demanded.
As far as skipping between the two, I favor that, but tentatively. It would be hard to keep it from being abused.
I don't think GvG should be on the "levelers" side, I think if you want a nice peaceful pasture to wander off to then that's what it should be. Or possibly put GvG as is on that side, and tweak it on the pvp side to include exp loss...the arena the same. There should be greater rewards for more risk though, and reduced ones for tamer pursuits.
For guilds that have both types of people, pick a side and get on it, individually if necessary. There are things to be gained here, some will be lost.
#11
Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:05
Seems to me that it would just be simpler to leave it on one server and PvPer's just attack other PvPer's which is essentially what you would be doing by splitting it off. You would have no more targets there than you would here.
I;d be willing to bet the pvp server would be ALOT more active then a leveling one. Alot more to do, and many players would be wanting the rp, rp items ( gvg) and the ladder items, also bounty hunting and so on. Quite possibly more players may dabble in those aspects then we currently have.
For a long while now, levelers have been asking to be left alone , not all, but a nice chunk of em. ( see the pvp protection thread) this idea *could* possibly fix that. Is it perfect? No, hence I;m asking thoughts and opinions. But as the weeks pass by and more and more argue about game semantics, pvp leveling sides, more and more leave the game out of frustration and or boredom.
#12
Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:06
Sounds like a horrible idea to me, so they'll probably do it. I remember when this used to be a pvp game.
#14
Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:13
I enjoy and play all aspects of the game. I personally would not like the choice of having to choose only one world - pvp or levellers - to remain in all of the time.
Also, bear in mind that there are, say, on average 750 active players online on a good day, obviously more when an event is on. Splitting FS into two in this way to whatever the ratio would be, means a much smaller player database for each world.
This idea might promote more people to play FS, or it might make the game too monotonous for existing players who would then possibly quit playing altogether.
Also, bear in mind that there are, say, on average 750 active players online on a good day, obviously more when an event is on. Splitting FS into two in this way to whatever the ratio would be, means a much smaller player database for each world.
This idea might promote more people to play FS, or it might make the game too monotonous for existing players who would then possibly quit playing altogether.
#15
Zukira
-
- New Members
-
- 1,991 posts
Veteran
- United States of America
Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:15
If they do the 'new world' thing, having a choice between a PvP and Non-PvP world would be nice but for FS prime, for all that we're pretty split on what is fun and what isn't I think it should remain.
What might help (just a couple suggestions):
1. A clear definition of what constitutes 'abuse' of others within the PvP system.
*While not everyone will agree with the limits, it would give non-PvPers a solid idea of when they can begin actually complaining about someone's behavior, and that they might get heard out about it.
------ Yes, I'm well aware that PvP doesn't need more limits on it, for those who don't use it to get their jollies making another person miserable, but are instead respectful about PvP, but the fact remains that there are some people who do get off on the misery of others and there are such people here who essentially pollute any chance of some folks giving PvP and PvPers a chance. Formalizing what constitutes abuse of a fellow player very well might help increase PvP activity.
*these would be 'loosened up significantly' if an actual PvP war is going on (if part 2 of this were to come about)
2, An indicator system that can be 'switched on' if a guild has declared war on another guild. (by war an actual PvP war not a GvG obviously.)
*The indicator could show up on the BB so that BH's know they might be getting into something bigger than just a bounty.
*The indicator would also show up right up top on bio's so that random hitters could see it as well and decide if they want to possibly stay out so they aren't dragged into a war by mistake.
*Random hitters can see that 'oh, they're in a war, it might be more political to stay away for now.
*Requires an initial input of the cause, which automatically communicates to the other guild. This way the guild that is under siege knows why, initially, it happened.
*Option for a joint leader chat if approved by both founders/anyone with permissions regarding PvP conflicts to promote discussion for conflict resolution.
*If no PvP hits occur between the guilds with the indicator after a certain span of time, the indication is dropped (to prevent abuse).
*maybe find a way to add some gold sinks.
What might help (just a couple suggestions):
1. A clear definition of what constitutes 'abuse' of others within the PvP system.
*While not everyone will agree with the limits, it would give non-PvPers a solid idea of when they can begin actually complaining about someone's behavior, and that they might get heard out about it.
------ Yes, I'm well aware that PvP doesn't need more limits on it, for those who don't use it to get their jollies making another person miserable, but are instead respectful about PvP, but the fact remains that there are some people who do get off on the misery of others and there are such people here who essentially pollute any chance of some folks giving PvP and PvPers a chance. Formalizing what constitutes abuse of a fellow player very well might help increase PvP activity.
*these would be 'loosened up significantly' if an actual PvP war is going on (if part 2 of this were to come about)
2, An indicator system that can be 'switched on' if a guild has declared war on another guild. (by war an actual PvP war not a GvG obviously.)
*The indicator could show up on the BB so that BH's know they might be getting into something bigger than just a bounty.
*The indicator would also show up right up top on bio's so that random hitters could see it as well and decide if they want to possibly stay out so they aren't dragged into a war by mistake.
*Random hitters can see that 'oh, they're in a war, it might be more political to stay away for now.
*Requires an initial input of the cause, which automatically communicates to the other guild. This way the guild that is under siege knows why, initially, it happened.
*Option for a joint leader chat if approved by both founders/anyone with permissions regarding PvP conflicts to promote discussion for conflict resolution.
*If no PvP hits occur between the guilds with the indicator after a certain span of time, the indication is dropped (to prevent abuse).
*maybe find a way to add some gold sinks.
|| signature rotates, artists varied ||
Fan my art on Facebook || Deviant Art || Chat on Irc
When in doubt, lean to the side of mercy.
- Cevantes
#16
Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:16
Blel, I remember that too. It's not anymore. The more they gripe the more they get. And trying to make everyone happy is certainly not to be faulted for it's own sake, as far as cows go, I think. It's not working though. Levelers just demand more and more, pvp'ers complain about how things "used to be." I thought it was terrible at first too, the idea to split us up.
I wonder now though if giving in to what they say they want, and in a fairly dramatic way, may not get us what we want too. You don't want to play FS the way it was originally designed? Get out. Simple as that.
I wonder now though if giving in to what they say they want, and in a fairly dramatic way, may not get us what we want too. You don't want to play FS the way it was originally designed? Get out. Simple as that.
#17
fortville
-
- Members
-
- 295 posts
Member
- United States of America
Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:19
I'm sorry but I fail to see how you have any more to do there than you would here and now. If someone wants to PvP here(and at some point I will partake) then they can do so. How will having a separate server increase that number? The most it would do is further increase the workload for the Cows thereby having fewer resources focused on what they already have on their plates.Seems to me that it would just be simpler to leave it on one server and PvPer's just attack other PvPer's which is essentially what you would be doing by splitting it off. You would have no more targets there than you would here.
I;d be willing to bet the pvp server would be ALOT more active then a leveling one. Alot more to do, and many players would be wanting the rp, rp items ( gvg) and the ladder items, also bounty hunting and so on. Quite possibly more players may dabble in those aspects then we currently have.
For a long while now, levelers have been asking to be left alone , not all, but a nice chunk of em. ( see the pvp protection thread) this idea *could* possibly fix that. Is it perfect? No, hence I;m asking thoughts and opinions. But as the weeks pass by and more and more argue about game semantics, pvp leveling sides, more and more leave the game out of frustration and or boredom.
#18
Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:21
I'm sorry but I fail to see how you have any more to do there than you would here and now. If someone wants to PvP here(and at some point I will partake) then they can do so. How will having a separate server increase that number? The most it would do is further increase the workload for the Cows thereby having fewer resources focused on what they already have on their plates.Seems to me that it would just be simpler to leave it on one server and PvPer's just attack other PvPer's which is essentially what you would be doing by splitting it off. You would have no more targets there than you would here.
I;d be willing to bet the pvp server would be ALOT more active then a leveling one. Alot more to do, and many players would be wanting the rp, rp items ( gvg) and the ladder items, also bounty hunting and so on. Quite possibly more players may dabble in those aspects then we currently have.
For a long while now, levelers have been asking to be left alone , not all, but a nice chunk of em. ( see the pvp protection thread) this idea *could* possibly fix that. Is it perfect? No, hence I;m asking thoughts and opinions. But as the weeks pass by and more and more argue about game semantics, pvp leveling sides, more and more leave the game out of frustration and or boredom.
How will it increase the workload? the game engine exists, the web servers exist. the database schema exists.
all that's needed is when a player switches, their FS schema is carried across to the new one created for the non pvp server, drop a few tables(related to PvP) and bobs your uncle.
#20
Mister Doom
-
- Members
-
- 6,518 posts
Veteran
- United Kingdom
Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:35
So basically, allow one set of people to play the game pvp free, another set of people pvp included?
Seem's like an awful lot of hassle when you could simply offer an 'opt-out'. (with the opted out unable to partake in a few areas of the game)
Would essentially be the same thing.
Seem's like an awful lot of hassle when you could simply offer an 'opt-out'. (with the opted out unable to partake in a few areas of the game)
Would essentially be the same thing.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users