Message to Funcom : Fight Club

[inXtremis]

Hello everybody.
I’ve been talking about it for some time with the teams I meet in pvp and more and more of us want conflict pve servers to become more pvp and less pve. Indeed we love to pvp, but very often we don’t have time to stay there long enough to protect our bases against hyper-connected teams. But in pve conflict mode the players hide in their base and do not find much interest in fighting during pvp hours. I therefore propose here a rebalancing of the conflict pve mode organized in a few suggestions. Players who agree with this will be able to leave a message and can suggest new ideas.

Ideas for conflict pve rebalancing:

• 1st point: H24 combat pvp.
• 2nd point: no damage to buildings, but restriction of the number of constructions. Players should not be able to extend too far to avoid being tempted to farm within the confines of their base. The big bases are to be kept for the pve which is a creative zone and for the pvp where we defend the base.
• 3rd point: thralls can be killed by other players at any time. The goal is to encourage players to fight and not hide behind their thralls.
• 4th point: all pvp features should serve a purpose. We could invoke an avatar of god to kill the army of a player and this one can use the bubble to protect his army. The invocation may be limited between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m.
• 5th point: we must be able to search in the workbenches and in the chests left open by the opposing players. Thus a poorly designed base would allow players to have fun finding loopholes to enter the base.
• 6th point: create events that encourage players to meet and take risks. For example capturing a single npc that appears on the map for everyone, or a mapwide flag hunt that would make the flag carrier visible on the map.
• 7th point: make the use of explosives necessary, for example during dedicated events. We can imagine the creation of a base by the developers which would appear randomly in more or less complicated places. This base would be defended by strong npcs who would protect a loot of unique weapons and armor.

Thank you for taking the time to read these suggestions. Feel free to agree with a +1 so that this post is read by the development team.

[Taemien]

@inXtremis

1st point: H24 combat pvp.

I assume you mean 24 hour PVP as in players damaging other players. Believe it or not, I don’t actually think this will cause players to fight more than they already do.

@inXtremis

2nd point: no damage to buildings, but restriction of the number of constructions. Players should not be able to extend too far to avoid being tempted to farm within the confines of their base. The big bases are to be kept for the pve which is a creative zone and for the pvp where we defend the base.

I believe the building rules already cover this. Except the PVE servers are just as restricted as the PVE-C/PVP servers.

@inXtremis

3rd point: thralls can be killed by other players at any time. The goal is to encourage players to fight and not hide behind their thralls.

Thralls set to guard a location are tied directly to the building system. You need the player damage building option to be turned on, which is full PVP.

@inXtremis

4th point: all pvp features should serve a purpose. We could invoke an avatar of god to kill the army of a player and this one can use the bubble to protect his army. The invocation may be limited between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m.

If I’m not mistaken, aren’t avatars available on both PVE and PVE-C now? And I think its 24-7, though I could be wrong.

@inXtremis

5th point: we must be able to search in the workbenches and in the chests left open by the opposing players. Thus a poorly designed base would allow players to have fun finding loopholes to enter the base.

Depending on the server settings, I believe you can do this already. When I play in PVP, I have to make sure all of my workstations and such are behind walls to prevent theft.

@inXtremis

6th point: create events that encourage players to meet and take risks. For example capturing a single npc that appears on the map for everyone, or a mapwide flag hunt that would make the flag carrier visible on the map.

There was events added in 3.0, however they don’t have markers. They wanted players to find them as a matter of exploration. However the event system in Savage Wilds might match what you are looking for here.

@inXtremis

7th point: make the use of explosives necessary, for example during dedicated events. We can imagine the creation of a base by the developers which would appear randomly in more or less complicated places. This base would be defended by strong npcs who would protect a loot of unique weapons and armor.

My speculation is that we will see this in the next age. I do know of at least one developer (I don’t remember which), who likes the idea of explosives and trebs having a use outside of PVP. The idea I had was for a NPC base to be assaulted and sieged to get the good thralls and loot inside. Judging by the language and references in the last livestream, this might… MIGHT be something we see in the next Age.

[Lucidique]

Aren’t you breaking the first rule of Fight Club?

[Firecrow]

Uh… they’re talking about PVE-C. You should play official PVP with that level of unbridled hostility

[CodeMage]

@inXtremis

1st point: H24 combat pvp.

I agree with this, but like @Taemien said, it won’t make people fight more. It will only make the existing PVE-C playerbase unhappy.

The problem is that there’s no real in-game incentive for conflict, so the only reason to fight is “just because”. People who are okay with fighting “just because” are already drawn to PVP servers, because that’s where “the real action” is.

The rest play some form of PVE. Now, PVE-C servers were originally created before Funcom introduced Battle Standards, so chosing a PVE-C server was your only chance to fight other players occasionally. So most (but not all) people who chose PVE-C did so either because 1) they can’t bloody well read and thought PVE-C meant PVE, or 2) they wanted to occasionally have a friendly fight with other players, preferably in some kind of a player-built arena.

Long story short, PVE-C playerbase does not appreciate people who attack others without provocation.

Personally, I would like to see more conflict on PVE-C servers, but I don’t want it to be “just because”, either. Most of the people who fight without any reason end up being toxic. They harass other people by camping outside their bases, or they kill noobs and lowbies, or they call you names if you run away from a fight, etc. That’s not the kind of crap I like seeing on a server where I play.

Instead, I’d love it if Funcom would introduce legitimate in-game incentives to fight.

@inXtremis

restriction of the number of constructions. Players should not be able to extend too far to avoid being tempted to farm within the confines of their base. The big bases are to be kept for the pve which is a creative zone and for the pvp where we defend the base.

Just no. Go play on a private server if you want restrictions and limits. Official server rules are restrictive enough.

@inXtremis

thralls can be killed by other players at any time. The goal is to encourage players to fight and not hide behind their thralls.

Are you talking about thralls set to guard? Because if you are, you didn’t think this through, not by a long shot.

Unless guarding thralls also attack anyone who isn’t in your clan – like they do on PVP servers during raid time – they would be defenseless and any griefer could just hop in and kill them at leisure.

On the other hand, making thralls attack everyone outside your clan, 24/7, would mean that players can’t show off their bases to people they’re friendly to. I’m not gonna cut my socializing just to cater to someone who didn’t like PVP servers enough

Unless they completely revamp the way we command our AI companions, thralls are just fine the way they are.

@inXtremis

We could invoke an avatar of god to kill the army of a player and this one can use the bubble to protect his army.

What army? We don’t have armies in Conan Exiles, not even on PVP servers.

@inXtremis

we must be able to search in the workbenches and in the chests left open by the opposing players.

It would be nice for PVE(-C) players to be able to lock and unlock their containers.

@inXtremis

create events that encourage players to meet and take risks.

Sounds like a good idea, something to give some actual in-game incentive for conflict.

@inXtremis

make the use of explosives necessary, for example during dedicated events

Also not a bad idea. Wouldn’t mind seeing some use for explosives on PVE-C servers.

[darthphysicist]

So as a form of crowdsourcing, what would warrant fighting in pve-c environments to your mind? I ask because I too want a reason to pvp in a pve environment that is compelling, and the old idea of pvp zones in a pve map is something that appeals to me.

[erjoh]

OK lets look at each point assuming PVE-C is what you are talking about

@inXtremis

1st point: H24 combat pvp.

I don’t see this as an issue and agree with it but most combat outside of raiding isn’t what you are imagining. It’s more ganking at obelisks than anything else.

@inXtremis

2nd point: no damage to buildings, but restriction of the number of constructions. Players should not be able to extend too far to avoid being tempted to farm within the confines of their base. The big bases are to be kept for the pve which is a creative zone and for the pvp where we defend the base.

Can’t damage buildings in PVE-C anyways so you are just adding a build limit which then you need to define this as some people can build efficient bases within a minimalist amount of foundations and others require over 5k.

@inXtremis

3rd point: thralls can be killed by other players at any time. The goal is to encourage players to fight and not hide behind their thralls.

Conflicts with an entire attribute called authority. But still don’t see an issue with the idea but could be very large programming issues due to it.

@inXtremis

4th point: all pvp features should serve a purpose. We could invoke an avatar of god to kill the army of a player and this one can use the bubble to protect his army. The invocation may be limited between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m.

PVE-C is about combat only and not raiding. Bubbles cannot be used on the battlefield because they are linked to the alter and the summoning of the avatar during combat in the open isn’t going to do well. The state of the game, as is, doesn’t have the people to warrant the effective use of avatar summoning.

@inXtremis

5th point: we must be able to search in the workbenches and in the chests left open by the opposing players. Thus a poorly designed base would allow players to have fun finding loopholes to enter the base.

I agree with this. PVE-C needs more than just player combat and I agree access to chests and tables should be allowed.

@inXtremis

6th point: create events that encourage players to meet and take risks. For example capturing a single npc that appears on the map for everyone, or a mapwide flag hunt that would make the flag carrier visible on the map.

Sounds like an event idea that can be cycled through the other events. I like it

@inXtremis

7th point: make the use of explosives necessary, for example during dedicated events. We can imagine the creation of a base by the developers which would appear randomly in more or less complicated places. This base would be defended by strong npcs who would protect a loot of unique weapons and armor.

Would require more active admin than what we got. When we get more active admin then stuff like this would be nice.

[CodeMage]

@darthphysicist

So as a form of crowdsourcing, what would warrant fighting in pve-c environments to your mind?

Honestly, anything will do, as long as it divides the players and gives them an incentive to compete.

The barest minimum needed to divide the players is to introduce two in-game factions – dig through something in the canon to come up with the lore-friendly names and explanation and descriptions – and allow players to align with either, but not both.

The barest minimum for an incentive would be to have some kind of a leaderboard. Of course, it would be much better to give something more tangible in terms of gameplay, to entice players to compete for it.

So let’s try to come up with something.

For example, we already have two sorcerers pulling the strings in Exiled Lands: Kurak and Mek-Kamoses. Give the Disciples of Kurak certain unique, useful recipes, and likewise to Followers of Mek-Kamoses. Make the core ingredient for each of those recipes be an item – let’s call it Soul Spark – you can only harvest from a level 60 player corpse.

You can go even further, and give the Disciples of Kurak and Followers of Mek-Kamoses certain passive benefits, which their chosen leader bestows upon them through sorcerous means, but in order to keep them active, the cult leader needs a steady tribute of soul sparks. The more soul sparks, the stronger the benefit (up to a certain maximum).

And so on. You can take the idea and complicate it or simplify it as much as you want, but the core is the same: divide into factions, give an incentive to belong to a faction, make that incentive work only if you fight members of rival factions.

@darthphysicist

the old idea of pvp zones in a pve map is something that appeals to me.

I like the idea in principle, but I don’t think it will work well with the current status quo. Exiled Lands often feel small due to players’ buildings, and the Isle of Siptah is no bigger. Dividing the map into PVE and PVP zones would make both maps feel even smaller. Throw the serial refreshers into the mix, and it’s a recipe for never-ending frustration.

I wouldn’t mind seeing that implemented if we had an upkeep system.

[erjoh]

What about an arena where you collect trophy skulls of PC opponents you best in the arena and these are traded for some gear that isn’t normally accessible in that map (IE vault armors in EL and Godbreaker gear in Siptah)