A Different Perspective to Alignments and PvP Issues



  • Alignments and PvP ruleset of Syndesia is a hot topic for discussion and each test, we observed different ruleset for them. The current alignment system heavily punishes red players(I think most agree on that) and does not allow a healthy PvP environment. I think this should be reverted back to previous version where all alignments are subject to equipped item drops but only the numbers differ.

    I myself am a Neutral player and plan to stay on Syndesia once the game is released. I understand why red players(Evil alignment) are punished in Syndesia: because Syndesia is mainly a PvX planet where Neutral alignment is preferred and Evil players originally belong to Tartaros where hardcore PvP ruleset is enabled. Now, I would like to look at this from another perspective. The question is, why Good players are not punished?(I do not consider not being able to obtain loot from Legends as a punishment in the current state of the game) The logic is straightforward: we have Arboreus, a PvE only planet with Good alignment is incentivized, Tartaros, a hardcore PvP planet where Evil alignment is incentivized and Syndesia, a PvX planet where Neutral alignment is incentivized. Thus, we need to encourage people to choose Neutral alignment. Some people in the Discord were using the following argument for Evil players: “If you want to be Evil and gank people, go to Tartaros!”. But the opposite should also be true: If you want to do PvE only, go to Arboreus. Now, I would like to make my proposal which can help us solve this problem:

    • Change the PvP ruleset in Syndesia to its previous version(but some modifications might still be required). Good players drop 1 equipped item, Neutral 2 and Evil 4 (Numbers can change)
    • Red players should be subject to getting jailed(as it is right now)
    • Good players have increased damage and defense against Evil alignment players
    • Good players earn KP at 50% rate than normal (Number can change)

    The main objective for punishing Good alignment is to make more and more people choose Neutral alignment. If some people still want to do only PvE in Syndesia, then they are good to go. However, they should also acknowledge that this is not Arboreus, so their alignment(Good) is not the preferred one. With this change, I do not only expect more Neutral players who turned from Good alignment, but also Red players will turn Neutral as more PvP action will take place. This way, it is possible to ignite the flame for PvP and create a dynamic environment to help the economy as well.



  • One thing you suggest sounds reasonable. Perhaps Good players could drop one equipped item for instance.

    But why should Good players only earn half KP? That does not make any sense at all.

    And then you said: "The main objective for punishing Good alignment is to make more and more people choose Neutral alignment." Umm, why do you want to change the way people want to play the game? Why do you want to punish people for choosing to play their way? That is entirely unreasonable that you create punishments for anyone wanting to play a Good character and avoid PVP.

    There is going to be plenty of PVP in this game, mostly on the Demon world. There will only be some PVP in Syndesia as I understand it. If the game developers try to punish Good players for trying to avoid PVP, you may find the vast majority of the players on Arboreus and an empty Syndesia and I think that would be really bad for the game.

    But I do think it is reasonable for a Good player to drop one item from their equipment...that sounds about right to me.

    Cheers.



  • As long as crafting is as time consuming as it is now, literally no one should drop gear.


  • Content Creator

    I think you misunderstand Syndesia's intent.

    Syndesia isn't meant to incentivize Neutral play, it is meant to allow both PvP and PvE, but to de-incentivize Evil play. Good is neither encouraged or punished. It is allowed to exist. Neutral is rewarded by being able to access Legends and a couple other things, but Good play is never meant to be punished in a game, unless the world itself is considered Evil (like on Tartarus).

    Remember, MMOs simulate Heroic Fantasy, and also 'Good' gameplay fosters a welcoming overall gaming environment, and thus, the majority of the game should reflect that in encouraging their player-base.

    PvP is pretty much the smallest sector of gaming society, they just happen to be the most visible and vocal, because for PvP, it is more about competition than cooperation. The Devs want to encourage cooperative play on Syndesia, PvE only play on Arborea, and PvP/Hostility/Antagonistic play on Tartarus.

    Thus there needs be no punishment for playing Good. Not on Syndesia...the only 'real' punishment is that there is chance we might be attacked while doing our PvE activities. At least such attacks are not currently punitive. We are not, as PvPers often say, Carebear players, we want to see the world challenge us...we just don't want to enter into the more competitive aspects the PvPers enjoy.



  • I don't speak for everyone, but all of those I have spoken to regarding this issue.. Nobody likes RNG and nobody wants RNG to determine dropped loot.

    As @THH mentioned, the current time gates introduced from crafting and refining are a major concern.. To expand on that, drop rates and rarity of T2 specific materials are another one. When you combine these concerns, loot drop is far too punishing in the current environment for most to run anything worthwhile.

    The meta will develop in to naked pvp, primitive armors, etc.. Some combination of trash gear as gear fear reaches all time high due to grind time and time gates.

    To your larger point, I personally I think the whole system we have in game right now is unnecessarily convoluted as it is.. Now we're talking about expanding on that. While I support dynamic incentives, I'll just say that if good alignment remains on Syndesia then there should be no positive incentives at all and only negative. I've shared and discussed the concept you mention of incentivized play on the specific worlds and I agree with most of your closing there.. All that being said, I think a key to the future success of the game is to simplify all these alignment systems before launch.


  • TF#8 - GENERAL AMBASSADOR

    Any idea how long it takes one person to craft enough resources to build a set of Mithril plate? You need three different Ores. 1 Iron 2 Tin and 3 Silver make 5 mithril ingots. You need 20 ingots for a set.

    And then some dbag griefer loaded up on haxxors and exploits is gonna come along and take my heard earned precious set?? Hells to the Gdarned never gonna happen.


  • Content Creator

    @Vortech Actually, it is the RNG elements that make a game a game...

    Without RNG, your dealing more with a task than a game, it is the elements of chance that make it gameworthy



  • @GamerSeuss said in A Different Perspective to Alignments and PvP Issues:

    @Vortech Actually, it is the RNG elements that make a game a game...

    Without RNG, your dealing more with a task than a game, it is the elements of chance that make it gameworthy

    Could not disagree more, but either way.. It's out of context. We're talking about loot dropping, not RNG in general.

    Getting back on topic, I think a variation of the Lineage II PVP/Karma system would be a great fit in fractured. Extend the tiers a bit and add loot drop on the very end.. It both allows and encourages pvp while providing balance.. Consequences for actions.


  • Content Creator

    @Vortech But the point on Syndesia is to allow, but Discourage PvP, not Encourage it.



  • @GamerSeuss said in A Different Perspective to Alignments and PvP Issues:

    @Vortech But the point on Syndesia is to allow, but Discourage PvP, not Encourage it.

    Your interpretation, sure. Some of us don't see it that way.

    We're here to discuss potential changes, the discussion is the key. It doesn't end because your interpretation says to wrap it up. This is the time to provide feedback, at least while it's still actionable.. This is the time for all of us to discuss our experiences with these systems in the current beta and what we'd like to see from them as things develop.


  • TF#1 - WHISPERER

    We should not be punishing good alignment, because all newcomers will primarily be in this alignment for a pretty good time.

    Instead we should be incentivizing neutral alignments and also have more engaging open world pvp hotspots in Syndesia.

    For example, we could have Neutrals double their percentages of loot drop on mobs.

    Right now, Neutrals are basically meaningless in Syndesia. The only thing they can do is legends, and even then the legends are only notified on death, so there's barely any difference with doing it good aligned.

    Not to mention the fact that Syndesia is about a political war, and everyone knows that the most important thing in political wars are wars about resources. Right now, there is simply no war for resources which needs to change -> something like if you were to gather resources outside of your residential territory, you need to be flagged neutral, and can have your cart stolen by other neutrals.



  • @GamerSeuss There are plenty of games that don't involve any RNG, take the difference between the board games Risk vs Diplomacy, both similar games, while Risk uses dice and Diplomacy, does not. I'd even argue Diplomacy is better.


  • Content Creator

    @Ablabla And I'd argue that Diplomacy is more of a Strategic Puzzle than a game. Same with Chess and Othello and other similar activites. They are all fine for what they are, but to be a 'game' you really need an element of chance, not just skill/strategy.



  • @Rife said in A Different Perspective to Alignments and PvP Issues:

    Instead we should be incentivizing neutral alignments and also have more engaging open world pvp hotspots in Syndesia.

    That is the main objective that I would like to achieve.

    For example, we could have Neutrals double their percentages of loot drop on mobs.

    And that is basically just going other way around, either way Good players will feel that they are at "disadvantage" 😄

    Not to mention the fact that Syndesia is about a political war, and everyone knows that the most important thing in political wars are wars about resources. Right now, there is simply no war for resources which needs to change -> something like if you were to gather resources outside of your residential territory, you need to be flagged neutral, and can have your cart stolen by other neutrals.

    That is actually a very good suggestion that I really would like to see. Because right now, Syndesia is not much different than Arboreus. And afaik, Syndesia should have lawfull PvP and if law allows guilds/nations to declare war each other and fight for resources, than these rules should apply to everyone disregarding their Allignment.


  • Content Creator

    @Clinion Sieges have gone back to the Devs for more work, and Guild Wars have not been implemented yet, but the idea is that once declared, anyone in a Guild can be targeted by the enemy guild during the span of the War, regardless of Alignment, so your getting what you want there, it just isn't here yet.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    I think that the neutral alignment is hard to get work because most of the players choose to play either good or evil. It is also hard to give neutral players benefits without taking away from others.



  • @GamerSeuss said in A Different Perspective to Alignments and PvP Issues:

    @Ablabla And I'd argue that Diplomacy is more of a Strategic Puzzle than a game. Same with Chess and Othello and other similar activites. They are all fine for what they are, but to be a 'game' you really need an element of chance, not just skill/strategy.

    You're being pedantic, it's a board game, it's not a strategic puzzle...

    TIL checkers isn't a game, it's a strategic puzzle.... The Game of Life, definitely a board game, but checkers and chess, strategic puzzles guys.


  • TF#1 - WHISPERER

    Having Neutrals get extra loot chance is not "taking away" anything from blue players. It's just incentivizing the neutral playstyle which is sorely needed right now.

    Even New World which we all know seems to hate open world pvp has pvp flagged players getting a higher loot chance.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @Rife Some certain group to get extra loot can be thought either way.. and we have to remember that if neutrals gets extra loot in Syndesia it makes it better than good and evil but also better when compared to players in Arboreus and Tartaros as well.


  • TF#11 - PROCONSUL

    At first I was thinking that, yes, Syndesia and humans are 'Neutral' but they are, at least nominally, more good than evil, in that they have more in common with good than evil as a rule.
    However, adding in the post by @Rife about neutral alignment, there is a point to be made for changing Syndesia and what it means to be 'Neutral'
    This would have to also take into account the discrepancy with loot drops for different alignments.

    If Tartaros is evil, and any good players there have only a short stay, debuffs(?) and the entire population after their heads, with Arboreus being the opposite, then why not make Syndesia truly, if not neutral, then at least equal?

    Give good players in Tartaros the same problems as evil players in Arboreus, with full loot drop if you like, but equal if opposite, and give good and evil players the same legal penalties on Syndesia.

    Make it so that in the same way that good players can hunt down and imprison evil players, evil players can do the same to good players. Since there will be evil aligned cities and regions anyway, then this way neither alignment can complain about unfair treatment.

    Neutral players on the other hand, should have both greater and less protection; on the one hand, while good players in evil zones will likely be attacked on site, and vice versa, though every player will react differently, then Neutral players in either good or evil zones could be viewed as untouchable, being attached to neither side; enemies, because they are not allies; spies, traders, whatever the situation calls for.
    Neutral players should be able to be attacked by any, because they refuse the security of either side, but potentially be attacked by neither for the same reason. They should be able to attack any (though not steal I would say, crimes aside from murder should be kept solely for evil alignment, only because there is no other way to protect against theft than to have the one side incapable and the other side visible as potential criminals, if there could be another way to register criminal activity that would be good, but as it is...) but karma would still be affected normally (there is a point where negative karma forces alignment change to evil isn't there?)


Log in to reply
 

Copyright © 2021 Dynamight Studios Srl | Fractured