Neutral alignment needs a change
-
Also remember, from a Game Developer's standpoint, Good playstyles should be always more encouraged than Evil at least, as Good playstyle encourages players to join in the game, encourages cooperation, and frankly PvP/Evil play often devolves into Toxic antisocial behavior that drives especially new players away from the game.
I'm not saying all PvPers are toxic, mind you, I'm saying the playstyle is far less welcoming to the masses, and so as a Developer, that is a consideration, and why Good is incentivized on Syndesia, and Evil is penalized, where Neutral is the Status Quo for the most part...mayhaps a couple perks.
-
A cool down timer for switching alignments would also help.
-
Yeah, along with the proposed changes, we should definitely have a cooldown on alignment changes which is not just a day or something, so that changing alignment becomes a more meaningful and impactful decision as well with proper consequences.
-
I think generally we all agree there definitely should be a cooldown timer between changing alignments, but the question is how long will it need to be so it's useful? 24 iRL hours? It could even end up being an in game timer so the player would need to spend a certain amount of time in game. You know what I would do tbh, I'd set it to be an in-game timer but it'll only count down when you aren't in a safe area. That way if you switch to neutral to go kill a legendary, you will be forced to grind out ___ hours in game outside safe areas to go back to good.
-
i do not agree, at the moment the game is so unbalanced that "forcing" player to fight in pvp during a legend hunt is a bad idea. First we need a better balancing of "classes".
-
Neutral alignment is based on consensual PvP so it would also make sense that people can flag back to good when they want to.
Forcing players is hardly a good thing and adding timers will only push people away from the game. If players does not want to PvP they most likely won't. They wait until the cooldown ends and continues after that. If this pattern is repeated too often then it is easier to play a game which you can actually play. A good amount of players will only flag to the neutral because otherwise they will be totally excluded from the end-game content. These people won't flag because they want to PvP so why to force them to do so more than they want?
Neutral alignment, according to design journal, is for like-minded players who wants consensual PvP action. Neutral playstyle can be encouraged, but forcing the neutral should be avoided. Those who want to be neutrals can freely do so and if there is not enough neutral players that only tells that majority of people prefers good or evil playstyles.
-
@Tuoni THIS
you hit the nail on the head...Neutral is all about Consensual PvP, so it should never be forced, period...incentivize it some, sure, like only letting Legends be summoned by Neutrals, but don't go announcing their summons so they suddenly have a PvP free-for-all whenever they want to try to take down a Legendary Boss with a group of friends. They already risk campers and chance encounters of PvP while in Neutral.
-
Neutral alignment is meant to be the alignment of competitive guilds.
Right now it isn't, so it needs some kind of incentive
-
@spoletta said in Neutral alignment needs a change:
Neutral alignment is meant to be the alignment of competitive guilds.
Right now it isn't, so it needs some kind of incentive
I would say it is because it looks like that the end-game content on Syndesia will be behind neutral flagging, Lost Tales and Asteroids.
Additionally, imo people are too early demanding changes for the Syndesia because we do not have proper testing environment implemented yet. We need mainly humans to test the wholenes, and Sieges, Lost Tales and Asteroids should be working as well. After that we can evaluate what kind of changes are needed. Now we have only some Lost Tales to test with punch of players and nothing else. Also demons and furries are thinking current world easily from their pov and they want to mold Syndesia based on their desires.
That is why current testing environment is somewhat vain because most of the end-game systems are not implemented nor working. Additionally, there is not only the main target audience testing or enough players in general to test the functions.
After we get Asteroids and Sieges working it will be easier to evaluate the neutral situation and check if some changes are needed.
-
Saying that we should only change things once we have more systems in place isn't the right idea imo.
Right now the population is kinda dead because there is hardly any end game pvp. ( Also because we hardly have any good PvE as well but Neutral's mainly PvP or PvPvE focused, so let's focus on the PvP side of things in this topic ).
We should first give more incentives for engaging PvP environment, to draw back the pvp crowd with pvp content, and then we can change things later where needed.
Saying we should change things later is kind of a miss at the moment since testers aren't coming to test since there is no engaging PvP content right now.
Also, we are talking about open world pvp content, which is different from asteroids and sieges.
-
@Rife Considering it has already been established in the MMO community that PvEers outnumber PvPers by a huge margin, they are just less vocal, it doesn't really make sense that more PvP content is what is needed. More End Game Content, sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean PvP...the most anticipated World for instance is Arborea, the NO-PvP world, and more than likely, we'll get a huge resurgence of population once Arborea is released.
If anything, PvP is more known to drive players away...except for those vocal proponents for PvP. PvP is just more visible, they are the competitive types, watching/showing up on leaderboards, competing in competitive play, and members of aggressive guilds...
The solo and PvE player, the so inappropriately named 'casual' player as it were, is by far the lion's share of who plays these games, at least until driven off by gankers, that is.
-
@Rife said in Neutral alignment needs a change:
Saying that we should only change things once we have more systems in place isn't the right idea imo.
Right now the population is kinda dead because there is hardly any end game pvp. ( Also because we hardly have any good PvE as well but Neutral's mainly PvP or PvPvE focused, so let's focus on the PvP side of things in this topic ).
We should first give more incentives for engaging PvP environment, to draw back the pvp crowd with pvp content, and then we can change things later where needed.
Saying we should change things later is kind of a miss at the moment since testers aren't coming to test since there is no engaging PvP content right now.
Also, we are talking about open world pvp content, which is different from asteroids and sieges.
Well.. I think that devs could test something extra if they communicate this to the community as well. If they just change things without giving any info why this is happening that can easily lead to misunderstandings. If devs would communicate that they are, for example, going to test different kind of PvP rules but the final form is still molding and under evaluation, then I guess that people who do not like certain changes will be much more understanding and perhaps even open minded to test out different situations.
-
@GamerSeuss Currently, the game is presented as a "Beta" version of the real game and we have less than a year until full release. Thus, this game needs to attract more and more players each day so that it can have a healthy population. So far, we have seen that the game becomes more and more empty each day due to lack of dynamic and challenging content. I think people would like to see an increase in PvP action(myself included) because it actually creates dynamism and keeps things alive such as economy, politics, PvE actions like gathering and crafting etc.
Until now, the planet we observed, called "Syndesia", is almost identical to what we expect from Arboreus due to the lack of any PvP action and we can see how well that went. Once Arboreus comes up, sure there will be huge increase in the population due to a major content update, but I do not think it will be enough to keep players engaged more than a month (just like how it happened in this test). The reason is simple: people need dynamic content. PvP actions are inherently dynamic as they are determined by player's actions. However, PvE is usually static (unless there exists a system which continuously generate new encounters and events, one can refer to Ashes of Creation's event system) and it does not provide any long term gameplay.
When you give your examples, you usually refer to ganking or senseless killing. These are the things what drives people away, I agree on that. However, what we would like to see is a meaningful and lawful PvP environment which will not only attract PvP oriented players but also increase the PvE oriented population due to the dynamism created(the need for more materials, more reagents, more crafted items and so on).
-
@Tuoni don't know how long you've been around, but the Devs have clearly indicated on numerous occasions that they are testing various forms of PvP and that what you see in the tests may not be the final version. They have said that over and over again, pretty much with each major overhaul of the system...so that has been communicated.
@Clinion I totally see what your saying, and from a PvP standpoint, you are probably right, BUT from a PvE standpoint, many of us don't mind where the game is right now as far as PvP, or want even less PvP, not more. Arborea will give them the less, we're okay with how the PvP is now on Syndesia, but it still isn't probably the final form...but more PvP is likely to drive many of the PvE testers away...and as they are the biggest overall player base, that, we can't afford to lose.
Yes, we need more population, but each major update will draw people back...especially the release of the other 2 planets and the asteroid system...and people are also waiting for the integration of the weather system, and the addition of Alchemy specifically.
I think people would also like to see the whole Recipe thing settled once and for all, but that's going to be a back and forth thing overall.
The only thing I don't think will bring more PvEers back or retain them is more PvP content.
-
@GamerSeuss If you have followed recent (during beta) discussions on Discord about PvP you would notice that it has been very unclear to testers what is the goal. Additionally, they have mainly dodged PvP related questions in AMA as well.
-
I've already mentioned, this thread is about the lack of PvP content that is sorely needed, not about PvE.
If you've played the test so far, you'd realize that the current character progression makes it so that PvE can never be sustainable. After you hit the abilities and talent points you need, there is little to no reason to do PvE anymore. For them to make good PvE system, the character progression system needs to be looked at.
What they can easily add right now though is PvP content which is needed in Syndesia. Syndesia should have PvP content over resources and end game PvE hotspots, because that's how Syndesia should be, as it's political PvP, and fighting over resources is a huge aspect of political PvP.
-
@Rife On that, many people disagree however.
I know I do, and I know I'm not alone.
Syndesia doesn't need heavy PvP content. In fact, I'd say that PvP is getting to the right point finally for Syndesia. You don't need, and many of us don't want PvP as the sole focus of End Game content. Yes, Sieges will be a thing, and we're okay with that once it is working and balanced, but for end game content for many of us, we want to see the Asteroid Raids, and of course, we're always interested in new Mob types and new crafts and new environmental effects. PvP is a focus on Tartarus, and it is possible, not balanced or focused on Syndesia, just possible, ,because A. You can't possibly balance PvP and PvE to where everyone is happy, and B. When in doubt, you should err on the side of a more welcoming place to play for the most players, ie: PvE...not all PvP is Gankers and Griefers, true, BUT the more open PvP is, the more you do see the worst come out of people.
Eventually, large scale Guild Wars and Kingdom Wars will happen, with rules that keep people uninvolved with the conflict out of it, but the game isn't ready to even begin to test these rules.
Once Tartarus is added, PvPs will have someplace to play...will they all be satisfied, No, of course not, to many PvPers, they get their sole joy in gaming out of Ganking those who don't want to be in PvP, but that's too bad.
The game is perfectly fine in how it is progressing with PvE content, and it is sustainable, because PvE players aren't always looking for more and more to do all the time. We like to see new Mobs, new Skills, new Talents, those things added are great. We like the idea of Asteroid raids, and shoot, later, they could even add other planets or undiscovered continents and dungeons to the mix.
-
You are talking about reds while we are talking about neutrals.
We are trying to find ways to make the game more interesting for neutral players. This has no impact on pve players, since it is only consensual pvp.
-
@spoletta Exactly, I'm fine with consensual PvP, like Guild Wars, or an Arena building in towns, or even a small area of the map that is a PvP hotspot that we can enter at our own risk(but not every single Legend camp)
-
@spoletta said in Neutral alignment needs a change:
You are talking about reds while we are talking about neutrals.
We are trying to find ways to make the game more interesting for neutral players. This has no impact on pve players, since it is only consensual pvp.
It actually impacts to good players if neutral alignment will be a must in most of the PvE content. How much it is anymore consensual PvP if good players are forced to flag neutral?
This is one of the reasons why this topic is extremely challenging. It is hard to favor one side without taking something away from others. Balancing good, neutral and evil will be hard and easily ends up to situation that 1 or 2 sides are not happy with the result.
If I try to approach this topic as objective as possible then I would like to see following happening in Syndesia.
-
I would not exclude good players from the end-game content and that means there would also be PvE Asteroids with challenging PvE content (even raid level). Perhaps these Asteroids can be shared with furries from Arboreus.
-
There will be PvE hotspots like at the moment. We have to remember that in open world good players are not totally safe anyway because of possible evil players.
-
Neutrals could have more options when compared to good players. Meaning that there could be some PvE hotspots which requires neutral flagging to enter and these areas would have extra resources (e.g. richer veins) available. These neutral hotspots could be in centric places so these can easily save some playing time to enter as well.
-
Lost Tales already needs flagging to neutral and the current system feels well balanced between good, neutral and evil. If the summoning would be informed globally this would mean that the world bosses would turn to ganking hotspots.
-
If neutral Asteroids will be more challenging (most likely will) then those should offer different, more or better rewards.
-
If a guild war system will be implemented then guilds in war could be neutrals against each other.
-
Lastly, I hope sieges would be developed in direction that those will be PvE and PvP effort Involving all the citizens and guild members regardless of their favored playstyle. There could be PvE tasks even during the ongoing siege event.
-
