As a huge collector of 40K ive never really thought table top as PvP
Dice tell storys
O7
PVP ACTIVITIES
- Thread starter XComanceX
- Start date
Dice tell storys
O7
I am guessing your experience might be Warhammer or Warhammer 40K etc. Me, more historical (ancient/medieval), WW2, Cold War, sci fi. And some fantasy. Mostly 15mm. Using De Bellis Antiquitatis (DBA) and Hordes of the Things (HotT), and I have played competitions in both with about only one encounter with a not fun player. Mostly the games are good, despite the occasional difference in rule interpretations.
If there was one, I would do a Lion Rampant tournament as they are fun rules and difficult to play to win at all costs. Currently painting more 28mm miniatures (mainly Perry plastics) to round out my latest army to use for those rules.
So, most of the games I play are the less complex, more fun imo.
Steve
Last edited:
It is though, player against player. And there is the in game banter like syschat, and the heckling from those not playing!As a huge collector of 40K ive never really thought table top as PvP
Dice tell storys
O7
And the war cry is usually "anything but a 1!"
Steve
All I've ever asked for is pvp content.
Missions, bgs PP related missions too. Which would bring 2 powers into a given "arena" where all hell broke loose.
Doesn't have to be a % above solo or pg. Just the hard option given by the faction from both sides.
There's no such mechanic ingame atm.
I've asked for % increased pvp rewards in the past and l know now it's just not fair.
But having pvpers fighting one another to complete a mission (10 kills or whatever) doesn't have to be rewarded higher than the solo equivalent.
In fact "flagging" pvpers would be a bonus. A simple option That's an on/off switch. Off meaning you cannot attack or be attacked.
Ramming etc assuming a cmdr selects off wouldn't have any effect.
But all this stuff is negated by human nature, in that pvpers let's be honest, tend to be more toxic than those in solo. Gankers, campers, pad wallas etc.
Till those issues are addressed our content is limited to what we choose to do ingame.
I don't gank. That's my choice.
Others do That's their choice.
Fixing pvp can be a simple on/off switch. But the permutations thereafter would lead to toxicity and workarounds
Missions, bgs PP related missions too. Which would bring 2 powers into a given "arena" where all hell broke loose.
Doesn't have to be a % above solo or pg. Just the hard option given by the faction from both sides.
There's no such mechanic ingame atm.
I've asked for % increased pvp rewards in the past and l know now it's just not fair.
But having pvpers fighting one another to complete a mission (10 kills or whatever) doesn't have to be rewarded higher than the solo equivalent.
In fact "flagging" pvpers would be a bonus. A simple option That's an on/off switch. Off meaning you cannot attack or be attacked.
Ramming etc assuming a cmdr selects off wouldn't have any effect.
But all this stuff is negated by human nature, in that pvpers let's be honest, tend to be more toxic than those in solo. Gankers, campers, pad wallas etc.
Till those issues are addressed our content is limited to what we choose to do ingame.
I don't gank. That's my choice.
Others do That's their choice.
Fixing pvp can be a simple on/off switch. But the permutations thereafter would lead to toxicity and workarounds
40k and Flames of War tournament wise.
These days I do more historical stuff; Hail Caesar, Black Powder, Wings of War, Signal Close Action and Seven Days to the Rhine.
Nice to see that you have turned away from the dark side. The club I go to has seen players turn from FoW, play less 40K and WH and instead play more Team Yankee, 7DTTRR, LotR, AoS, ASOIF, Muskets and Tomahawks, Blood and Plunder to name but a few. People will see different games being played, are able to try them out with existing players and if they like build their own armies. Some even get converted to ACW and Napoleonics.
Steve
Darrack, did you not finish reading my post before you hit reply? You missed the part where I mention the same point you made about successful games without PvP. I also agree that PvP, despite many folk's attempts to convince one otherwise, is not the end all be all of online gaming. Hence why single player and co-op PvE games were developed at all in the first place.
Steve, I feel ya man. No joke I probably have a slight bit of trauma from Ultima Online, being ganked and griefed over and over again while 10 year old me is pleading with my murderer to just let me enjoy hunting some ogres.
Again, non-consensual PvP is not the answer. History has shown us this.
If I had made this game nobody would be able to harm each other in open without first joining a designed game system that allows it. For example a piracy group providing incentive to break cargo hatches of player traders who are in turn affiliated with an association that gives extra rewards for successful delivery under threat of player piracy. Bounty hunting agencies that provide additional incentive to take out pirates and protect traders, and faction organizations giving extra rewards for taking out opposing faction players. All in relation to the same activities performed against npcs, while not being so major of an incentive to make not joining said systems impractical and having measures in place to thwart farming abuses. Some would disagree, with valid arguments, but in my experience this is one of the most commercially successful approaches to aggressive player interactions in online gaming. Risk vs reward baby, it's a good thing.
And to Felix's point on the competitive scene of games sometimes becoming waaaay to sweaty. I agree, this is the main reason I stopped playing Magic: The Gathering. It got to the point of first or second turn infinite mana combos, fun for some people but not for me. If I play at all these days its Commander format in a much more casual and fun environment.
As an aside it is awesome to hear you guys enjoy table top war games. Friend of mine was deep into painting warhammer miniatures and army composition can absolutely tick that same build theory checkbox a lot of us find so enjoyable.
o7
Steve, I feel ya man. No joke I probably have a slight bit of trauma from Ultima Online, being ganked and griefed over and over again while 10 year old me is pleading with my murderer to just let me enjoy hunting some ogres.
Again, non-consensual PvP is not the answer. History has shown us this.
If I had made this game nobody would be able to harm each other in open without first joining a designed game system that allows it. For example a piracy group providing incentive to break cargo hatches of player traders who are in turn affiliated with an association that gives extra rewards for successful delivery under threat of player piracy. Bounty hunting agencies that provide additional incentive to take out pirates and protect traders, and faction organizations giving extra rewards for taking out opposing faction players. All in relation to the same activities performed against npcs, while not being so major of an incentive to make not joining said systems impractical and having measures in place to thwart farming abuses. Some would disagree, with valid arguments, but in my experience this is one of the most commercially successful approaches to aggressive player interactions in online gaming. Risk vs reward baby, it's a good thing.
And to Felix's point on the competitive scene of games sometimes becoming waaaay to sweaty. I agree, this is the main reason I stopped playing Magic: The Gathering. It got to the point of first or second turn infinite mana combos, fun for some people but not for me. If I play at all these days its Commander format in a much more casual and fun environment.
As an aside it is awesome to hear you guys enjoy table top war games. Friend of mine was deep into painting warhammer miniatures and army composition can absolutely tick that same build theory checkbox a lot of us find so enjoyable.
o7
Last edited:
They just want to get more people for their entertainment, without the consent of those people.
If I was a developer I would just make a checkbox in the settings : my weapon and ram does not harm other commanders, and when calculating instants simply would not be the players have the same instant even if they are in the link.
And it would be immediately visible more and in what mode flies.
Yeah I get that, and I understand the resulting resistance to any changes that force or lure players into open. Any consensual PvP system would be subject to open play and face the same quandary unless some major C&P changes accompany it or some kind of hostile flagging/PvP switch is enforced. This is inevitably getting into open/solo/pg territory again though and there is a thread for that.
Any hypothesis y'all have on what the potential changes to Powerplay 2.0 might entail that will supposedly encourage more direct (and wholesome) PvP interactions?
edit - reading through the PP 2.0 thread now (derp)
Any hypothesis y'all have on what the potential changes to Powerplay 2.0 might entail that will supposedly encourage more direct (and wholesome) PvP interactions?
edit - reading through the PP 2.0 thread now (derp)
Last edited:
why do you think I did my pirating in a T7FDL-s only interesting aspect IMO is that its reputation means most other commanders will immediately flee from the CZ if you show up there in one
Who are "they"?
Those who demand that PP and BGS be made open game only.
Ahhh... nasty people, indeed.
There’s plenty of people, myself included, who would PvP if it weren’t for the factors I listed yesterday. That’s always been the problem with an Open-PvP/PvE environment in my experience: too many barriers to entry for most players. In theory, such an environment should make for a vibrant experience. In practice, a cohort of players who are simply not fun to play with ruin it for everyone.
This cohort does not go away with the old PvP switch. PvP is simply the easiest way to mess with people. Personally, I find these kinds of activity more annoying than simple PKing. I’m an early Ultima Online player. I’ve seen a what a PK apocalypse at its worse can do, so that’s *really * saying something. EDs tri-mode system managed to create the improbable in my eyes: an Open-PvP/PvE environment not only tolerable for me to play in, but fun. I’d sooner play in Solo than endure yet another PvP-switched PvE environment.
It’s easy to assume malice when it comes to PvPers asking for more PvP. But this thread wasn’t about the modes… at least at first. It didn’t even take a page before the first pro-Open Only posts showed up, and the inevitable anti-Open Only rebuttals soon followed.
Which is a pity. I have my own ideas on what it would take for me to get more involved in PvP, but I inevitably get drowned out once the Eagles start playing. Granted, I love a good Eagles concert, but variety is the spice of life.