Is VvV really working how they want?

[Viquire]

I agree, it was a good idea to get no pvpers input, but... 8 and 1/2 out of 10 were the feedback team for a system ostensibly being designed FOR pvpers? That's just stupid. At WORST it should have been 50/50. :/

I guess that depends on the premise.

If the premise is "How do we build a kick ass PvP system that the folks that PvP will enjoy?" then you are exactly correct. If you want more than just the group of folks that are currently PvPing, then that might be just one of many questions you ask.

The really good news is they seem to be listening and taking feedback from both groups seriously, and making adjustments, with more plans to add new features down the road. IMHO that is a recipe for success.

 

[cazador]

They should have polled actual PvPers..just my 2¢


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Uvtha]

I guess that depends on the premise.

If the premise is "How do we build a kick ass PvP system that the folks that PvP will enjoy?" then you are exactly correct. If you want more than just the group of folks that are currently PvPing, then that might be just one of many questions you ask.

The really good news is they seem to be listening and taking feedback from both groups seriously, and making adjustments, with more plans to add new features down the road. IMHO that is a recipe for success.

Like I said I am fine with non pvpers being part of the group, to help it appeal to people who don't pvp but they shouldn't have been the vast majority. You should start with the people who actually do pvp and WANT to pvp. Because once the newness dies down these are the people who will be consistently using the system... or not.

 

[Viquire]

Like I said I am fine with non pvpers being part of the group, to help it appeal to people who don't pvp but they shouldn't have been the vast majority. You should start with the people who actually do pvp and WANT to pvp. Because once the newness dies down these are the people who will be consistently using the system... or not.

On that we agree. But it has been my experience that once people decide it is something they can do, they tend to become part of that group you want to be included. Yes, we have a learning curve. It's a big learning curve, and it takes time.

So my question to you then is, what portions of the system that is in place now are still troubling or not engaging? And are those points enough to cause the system to not be fun.

 

[FrejaSP]

Many starts as non PvP'ers and many hear so many warnings about PvP and Felucca, that they not even dare to try. I really believe we need to bring PvP to trammel, so they not only hear the rumers but also see PvP going on around them. It should still be their choice, when they are ready to and active join VvV.
Allow VvV on Trammel facets but not in Trammel Towns.
Keep the battles in Fel Towns but use VvV as a PvP switch in Trammel.
Give VvV players the fel bonus in Trammel too but only when they are signed on VvV
Give the players a choice between activating VvV in Fel only or in both Tram and Fel.
A player, whe see PvP going on around him and maybe has guildmembers being a part of it are more minded to try it out than the one, who only hear about how bad it is. Special some old perm anti PvP players from before Trammel have hard with accepting any kind of PvP in the game.

 

[Uvtha]

On that we agree. But it has been my experience that once people decide it is something they can do, they tend to become part of that group you want to be included. Yes, we have a learning curve. It's a big learning curve, and it takes time.

So my question to you then is, what portions of the system that is in place now are still troubling or not engaging? And are those points enough to cause the system to not be fun.

Well, I don't really pvp, I used to be a thief, and I've killed a few people who have attacked me, but that's as close as I got, and play siege, and it works different on siege (no arties, harder to avoid as a non pvper) but just as a system I think my main problem with it is simply that it's meaningless.

Factions at least was about taking control of towns, and there was some (if minimal) incentive to do so. VvV is just a pvp game with no meaning. Of course they basically took away town control and gave it to Rpers, so they couldn't do that any more.

Also there is no difference between virture or vice, except they are represented by a different color. Factions was also light on the separation, but at least there was the fiction behind every faction.

What I would really like is some really expansive system including meaningful territory control, and cooperation of pvpers and non pvpers working toward a common goal with a fiction behind it all that makes sense, and is written into ongoing game lore. I understand that is far too much to ask for... but whatever.

 

[Lore Denin (GL)]

What I would really like is some really expansive system including meaningful territory control, and cooperation of pvpers and non pvpers working toward a common goal with a fiction behind it all that makes sense, and is written into ongoing game lore. I understand that is far too much to ask for... but whatever.

This has always been what the players have wanted. Factions had its own complexities and unless someone really understood all aspects of it, adapting it and updating would have been hard. Keeping my fingers crossed that starting from scratch with Vice vs Virtue, UO can finally get there as the system evolves.

Lore's Player