PvP ruleset debate thread: Why Infamy is for carebears... or is it?

[Rulke]

I still think more players will roll PvE than PvP servers @ launch.

[Senji]

I still think more players will roll PvE than PvP servers @ launch.

More people always roll PVE than PVP.

[Foxer]

Depending on the size of the PVP, I would say deciding factors are Lancers over healers in 90% of our fights. Might be because I'm both and can't really speak for DPS, but in organized 10v10s, the team with 2 Lancers always beat out the team with 8 DPS. This is Aphotic VS World Boss with 1 Priest per party.

For random PKers without a healer, then yeah, you're right, but even then, that should only apply to really low-man PVP (2V2, 3V3, 4V4, ETC).

Edit:
Good thing the box event was implemented so early. In KTERA, you were also able to get glyph reset stones, good HQ charms, exclusive mounts, and all sorts of pots and meds out of those crates.

Edit 2:
People complaining about the cap being level 32 don't like to upgrade to token gear apparently. They were superior to D26 gear unless you were at +6 minimum.

[Shassira]

Depending on the size of the PVP, I would say deciding factors are Lancers over healers in 90% of our fights. Might be because I'm both and can't really speak for DPS, but in organized 10v10s, the team with 2 Lancers always beat out the team with 8 DPS. This is Aphotic VS World Boss with 1 Priest per party.

For random PKers without a healer, then yeah, you're right, but even then, that should only apply to really low-man PVP (2V2, 3V3, 4V4, ETC).

Edit:
Good thing the box event was implemented so early. In KTERA, you were also able to get glyph reset stones, good HQ charms, exclusive mounts, and all sorts of pots and meds out of those crates.

Correct, I'm judging it based on low man pvp. Most of the fights were at most 4v2, after which point we really stoped having much of a chance unless their configuration didn't include ranged fighters. 2v2 we could manage with a healer on a side, after all it's only one DD to annoy us, which can be slept and dealt with. But 3v2 was utterly impossible if they had a healer unless they kept themselves so close that sleeps and stuns would land on all.

Friend was also trying out Mystic and we went to pvp Slayer + Mystic and the difference was hilarious when it came to facing many. He'd just kite people and heal spammed while we survived hordes of PK-aggro. Obviously everything with capped people, I'm not wasting my time fighting low levels.

Anyway, not surprissed about the lancer stuff you comment and it does make sense. Lancers were specialy annoying to fight and when the other group had numbers to back them, they were definitely tide changing with their lock outs, pulls and stuns. I can see how that will affect bigger parties.

Alot people playing tera probably aren't sure of whats going on too much. Like me I just learned about the token gear you can get from medals in the main city.. like 4 hours before the end of CBT3 ;/

May go farming them this upcoming CBT... unsure if want to get'em for archer or berserker though... hmm

Aye. Although we were aware of the superiority of the lv32 gear, we just decided to experiment with other stuff we weren't so sure about. Been messing with crafting, disenchanting, gathering, fighting different bams, low maning content, a lot of pvp experiments, etc.

I just found the cap at 32 to be a bad one. Not the actual level however, as there's a lot to do there.

[Ghost_Wheel22]

Hmm, no mention about Infamy. Curious if they will turn on the penalty debuffs and convert the QQ generated from PvP neckbeards into power and profit more than actual subscriptions.

[Avarice]

Looks like Infamy debuffs still won't be in place for CBT4. Bummer.

[Eddard]

Looks like Infamy debuffs still won't be in place for CBT4. Bummer.

You will get nothing and you will like it!

[Soho]

Hmm, no mention about Infamy. Curious if they will turn on the penalty debuffs and convert the QQ generated from PvP neckbeards into power and profit more than actual subscriptions.

6 PvE Servers vs 10 PvP Servers at launch shows the power/presence of the PvP player base on this game.

They're not likely to risk fucking up the PvP before launch, despite the incessant whining of the PvE crybabies.

[Shassira]

I really don't think that list is accurate. I'm aware it was captured from EME themselves, but it was during a period of down time; this is very likely just internal testing and the pve / pvp markings were most likely just temporary.

There's one special reason to believe this: RP servers.

These were introduced after this list went live and they should somehow provide a tag to distinguish them (or it, probably just one).

Finaly, PvE servers are normaly more numerous than PvP ones, so it does strike me strange such an imbalance towards pvp.

---

That said, I really saw no problems with ganking or abuse during the latest CBT in EU. There was a lot of GvG, lots of PKs and many people using shaddy strategies (like luring you to think you'll 1v1 when a party was hidding, ganking at crab BAMs, going into safety swimming, etc) but there's no reason to stop people from doing these things.

The only lame exploit is the safe healing, but I suposse the best way to not be bothered is to simply not pvp near a safe zone.

[Foxer]

Remember that you're allowed to go from PVP servers to PVE servers and not the other way around so they're initially banking on more players starting off on PVP servers because of that option. I'm sure it'll even back to normal soon after launch.

[Katlan]

Remember that you're allowed to go from PVP servers to PVE servers and not the other way around so they're initially banking on more players starting off on PVP servers because of that option. I'm sure it'll even back to normal soon after launch.

But everyone seems to be assuming Server xfers will be available at launch and/or free. which I doubt either will be. Easier said than done to get everyone to pay $15+ to server xfer.

Moreover, I really don't like how they aren't putting the infamy system in place yet. How it plays out is a big factor in me deciding to go PvP or not. Them still not including it makes me think they are unsure if they intend to

[Senji]

Moreover, I really don't like how they aren't putting the infamy system in place yet. How it plays out is a big factor in me deciding to go PvP or not. Them still not including it makes me think they are unsure if they intend to

I'm surprised at no infamy adjustments for this CBT, and with how light the patch notes are in general.

They have a lot of data collecting/to collect for these tests and they seem to be using it. Combined with what they learned at NCwest I'm not worried.

[Katlan]

Isn't this the last CBT though? I'm just generally surprised because, like you said, they have been trying different methods in order to collect data. First CBT didn't have any penalty system so they could collect data on ppl's behaviors. Then the last 2 added in the penalty system but w/o including infamy. So I assumed this time they would apply it all and then use that data to determine OBT stuff... especially since OBT is basically early access. (my time table of CBTs may be off, but the general idea is the same)

They seem to be really trying and I commend em on it. What is most refreshing is that they are definitely not in the same relationship to their Korean counterpart as NCWest is to NCKorea. NCWest couldn't make any real changes to the client outside of housing some freebie survey event type things or making small behind the scene adjustments to xp, ect... EnMass has so far shown they can [somewhat] freely alter the actual client to some degree from their Korean counterpart.

[Clave]

There's another closed beta left.

I wouldn't hold my breath for them to implement infamy debuffs like the korean version, however. They haven't mentioned it anywhere, both on forums and on other sections of their site, that I've seen anyway.

Edit: And when the korean ruleset was described by a poster on their official forums, I seem to remember the overall response being wildly negative. I really didn't spend too much time looking because reading that thread gave me a headache.

Edit2: Dun wanna double post! Found this quote from Knoxxer, senior producer, posted february 23rd in the "PvP this weekend..." thread:

@Cogbyrn my personal dream is to have a system balanced where the community polices themselves and we aren't putting in unnecessary penalties. Hopefully it can be realized!

Edit3: Another, 02/18/2012, 07:46 AM Posted In: "Outlaw" mode is confusing people.

Channels will be dynamic but I know that they aren't ideal for PvP but they will be a necessary evil for beta and launch.

Long run once players spread out channels won't be nearly as necessary. That said we are still thinking what improvements we need to make. As stated previous we are going pretty vanilla on the PvP servers and want to see what you guys think so we can make adjustments.

One idea we are kicking about is is adding a cast time to switch channels. Right now its too easy to see for enemy and bail to another channel. Thoughts?

They seem to be listening to feedback. As terrible as the official forums are, it's probably the best way to get your voice to them.

[Soho]

There's no way they're going to add penalties to PvP for the NA release. If they put penalties for PvPing on a PvP server, most of us who are serious about PvP would leave the game. The Korean servers were all PvE. Completely different system.

Staying flagged for killing lowbies isn't really even a penalty at this point since it doesn't stop you from going into safe areas/towns. In fact, it's kind of easier to just go gank a bunch of lowbies so you stay red all the time than it is to keep hitting the damn Outlaw ability (and deal with JA wait) every time I want to kill someone.

[Kachiko]

There's no way they're going to add penalties to PvP for the NA release. If they put penalties for PvPing on a PvP server, most of us who are serious about PvP would leave the game. The Korean servers were all PvE. Completely different system.

Staying flagged for killing lowbies isn't really even a penalty at this point since it doesn't stop you from going into safe areas/towns. In fact, it's kind of easier to just go gank a bunch of lowbies so you stay red all the time than it is to keep hitting the damn Outlaw ability (and deal with JA wait) every time I want to kill someone.

Korean servers have long had PvP, on their system. There were tokens you could buy, to declare PvP on one person/group, and there are the PvP enabled provinces, allowed through the Political System. Sure, the system has changed recently, and even the NA client has a form, of the new system, implemented in the CBs. EME has already stated they don't want a penalty free PvP system, so the only question is what the specific PvP penalties will be, come NA release; will the infamy points be the total scope, or will they also add in the penalties they keep mentioning they haven't implemented in the CBs so far, such as stat reductions and +x% chance of crystals breaking on death?

[Clave]

or will they also add in the penalties they keep mentioning they haven't implemented in the CBs so far, such as stat reductions and +x% chance of crystals breaking on death?

Mind getting me the source on this? I've looked and looked and haven't found it.

[Soho]

Korean servers have long had PvP, on their system. There were tokens you could buy, to declare PvP on one person/group, and there are the PvP enabled provinces, allowed through the Political System. Sure, the system has changed recently, and even the NA client has a form, of the new system, implemented in the CBs. EME has already stated they don't want a penalty free PvP system, so the only question is what the specific PvP penalties will be, come NA release; will the infamy points be the total scope, or will they also add in the penalties they keep mentioning they haven't implemented in the CBs so far, such as stat reductions and +x% chance of crystals breaking on death?

I didn't say Koreans couldn't PvP. I said they're all PvE servers. Which is fact. All the PvP is either instanced or consensual.

They're not going to penalize PvP on a PvP server man. Everything I've read from En Masse says they won't. I'd love to see the source of where you read differently.

The crystals already have a chance to break on death, but that's not specific to PvP (it happens on PvE also). I don't really see that as a PvP penalty, it's just part of Tera's overall mechanics.

[Kachiko]

I didn't say Koreans couldn't PvP. I said they're all PvE servers. Which is fact. All the PvP is either instanced or consensual.

They're not going to penalize PvP on a PvP server man. Everything I've read from En Masse says they won't. I'd love to see the source of where you read differently.

The crystals already have a chance to break on death, but that's not specific to PvP (it happens on PvE also). I don't really see that as a PvP penalty, it's just part of Tera's overall mechanics.

What you said was "The Korean servers were all PvE. Completely different system.", with the implication there was no PvP, hence I pointed out how you had PvP, on their servers, making them neither PvE or PvP but a mix of both. K-Tera consensual PvP is their battlegrounds (instanced); the two I specifically mentioned were non-consensual; if someone spent their PvP items, they could attack you without your consent, but the 5 second rule was around then, so you could run away if you saw it coming. PvP in Vanarch enabled zones may have been a FFA, but as I didn't personally experience that, I could be wrong on that point.

https://forum.tera-europe.com/showthread.php?t=23329

Here's one pages article about K-Tera PvP changes, which include penalties that I mentioned. EME's current patch notes say they aren't penalizing right now, and there's no reason to even say that unless penalties exists in some version of the game.

So yes, EME has implementing penalties for doing open world PvP, and only time will tell what their full rule set will be. Whether they will be an effective deterrents, or if you specifically view them as deterrents, is very different discussion.

[Clave]

EME's current patch notes say they aren't penalizing right now, and there's no reason to even say that unless penalties exists in some version of the game.

So yes, EME has implementing penalties for doing open world PvP, and only time will tell what their full rule set will be. Whether they will be an effective deterrents, or if you specifically view them as deterrents, is very different discussion.

The current patch notes don't mention any of what you said. Do you mean this from the CBT3 patch notes?

http://tera.enmasse.com/news/patch-notes/patch-160306

We won't penalize you for being an outlaw (having Infamy Points), but the community may retaliate as it sees fit.

I don't see this "right now" anywhere, nor any implication that this was only temporary. Who knows though. Maybe they'll test it out in CBT5, if they did indeed have plans to do so.

People keep saying EME has stated they are going to add direct infamy penalties like the K-tera system. I'm just trying to find out where people are getting this. I've been unable to locate anything of the sort other than the source-less Q&A over on Tera PvP explained thread. Google turns up nothing but a thread linking back to that one on BG. Is there something I'm missing?

The link you provided just describes the K-Tera rules. An EME representative on the official forums already mentioned he'd like a system balanced where the community polices themselves and they aren't putting in unnecessary penalties(post#6). To me, this indicates that they don't want to add the direct penalties if they don't have to. That, along with what seems to be a majority response in the official forums, leads me to believe that the chances of them implementing the same K-Tera direct penalties is slim. Whereas here I see plenty of people treating the direct penalties as a certainty claiming it was something EME promised.

Edit: Meh, I guess none of this matters. It's a beta, we'll find out eventually what they do. Play and have fun in the meantime \o/