PvP change idea - Battlefields

[ErdTod]

Most of PvP interactions in HnH are about who has bigger number of fighters, which is OK, but is really frustrating when you are ganked by a one-hitting knarr crew. Other scenarios when you are caught picking berries and roots by a gang of bandits beheading your rageless character with gruesome damage are also usually not so fun. As a proof of my words I refer to PvP factions complaining about state of PvP, some very little personal experience and the linear player number decay of HnH.

My suggestions:
- Do not have rage influence the "mortality" of a character.
- Instead of making rage easily killable after KO - make all characters rageless mechanically, i.e. KO'd and TPed in a random gank scenario.

To compensate, add "Battlefield" mechanic.
- Battlefield zone is created whenever a cairn is challenged, a siege machine attacks, a meteorite lands or with a hearth magic that is gained after buying "Rage" for some XP cost.
- You can't enter battlefield without a toggle "Raging" or whatever turned on.
- If you are on a battlefield, have active combat relation and your "Raging" toggle is turned on, you can't leave the battlefield zone. (Just like you can't enter someones claim without criminal acts turned on)
- You can't turn the toggle off once it has been "on" on the battlefield.
- If you happen to be on a battlefield with this toggle off (logged in, or someone spawned battlefield underneath you) - you can leave the battlefield freely, or turn the toggle on.
- Only on that battlefield zone characters are mortal like they are now (if they have Rage skill).

This is somewhat unnatural, but can be explained that "rage in your heart doesn't allow to turn your back to your foe" - that's why you can't leave the battlefield.

In theory, this allows players voluntarily enjoy PvP content, and buy rage without the fear of losing character in a random gank instead of a worthy fight. And those who are caught in a gank, can flee from said battlefield, while attackers will be stuck on it for as long, as their combat relation lasts.

What do you think?

[discospaceman]

Not +1, but not -1 either.

It seems great, but I don't think removing the possibility of being ganked out in the open should happen, especially if you have the rage skill. If you've made a friend of death, you should be ready for him to visit at any time!

As much as I play a peaceful character there is a uniqueness to being so vulnerable all the time. I do agree that grievous damage killing sprucecaps or those with little interest in PVP is dumb, they should only die if caught while injured, and injuries causing long-lasting/permanent stat decreases is fine in my book (our crafter bois getting the shit kicked out of them and the subsequent draining of desperate hearth magic while bleeding out should have much greater penalties)

Other than that, I enjoy the idea of a battlefield and increasing PVP in this game.

[discospaceman]

Not +1, but not -1 either.

It seems great, but I don't think removing the possibility of being ganked out in the open should happen, especially if you have the rage skill. If you've made a friend of death, you should be ready for him to visit at any time!

As much as I play a peaceful character there is a uniqueness to being so vulnerable all the time. I do agree that grievous damage killing sprucecaps or those with little interest in PVP is dumb, they should only die if caught while injured, and injuries causing long-lasting/permanent stat decreases is fine in my book (our crafter bois getting the shit kicked out of them and the subsequent draining of desperate hearth magic while bleeding out should have much greater penalties)

Other than that, I enjoy the idea of a battlefield and increasing PVP in this game.

To add to my response, I'm not sure challenging just one cairn should result in a battlefield - the current state of cairn challenges means that multiple cairn challenges happen at a time, and multiple battlefields in one incursion seems unfitting. Perhaps you should have to maintain presence on a battlefield for it to persist, with battlefields spawned from cairn areas linking where they overlap? And the more cairns you challenge, the more fighters you should have to maintain the presence?

[loleznub]

It's increasingly difficult to kill a player without rage. Death to non rage characters can be put on one of two things really.

1.) The player without rage dies because they made the choice of going outside with wounds already. (Players fault, nothing to do with the rage system.)

2.) The player that is attacking skillfully lowers the non-ragers health, slowly inflicting wounds for a final execution attack. (This can be expanded upon, but essentially means the aggressor played well and the defender didn't play well. the aggressor should be rewarded for this.)

I don't think there should be any changes to the current system as it is, especially ones that add in new "instances". H&H has always been an unforgiving game, and should not be catered to players that aren't interested in that mechanic of the game. The devs have already been nice enough to include some type of protection (which can be circumvented through good/bad play), but it has not been like that until very, very recently.

Why do people keep asking for additional nerfs to this mechanic? You guys really need to realize you've already got it very, very good compared to all past worlds.

[Kaios]

1.) The player without rage dies because they made the choice of going outside with wounds already. (Players fault, nothing to do with the rage system.)

That's partly the intention of the wound system though is it not, to "cripple" the player in the form of injuries and such wounds as bum burn or going in to pvp deal enough to take days to heal. Not every player has a massive army of alts available to go do things they would normally be doing with their main nor does encouraging players to go outside their walls on less valuable characters give much incentive to pvp them.

[ErdTod]

You guys really need to realize you've already got it very, very good compared to all past worlds.

This, however, doesn't mean it should stop improving. I am not sure if this particular idea is an improvement, but with it I am trying to adress such things that feel bad about PvP:
- Having no rage leaves you defenseless. I.e. you're left to watch your friends being gangbanged if you all don't wanna buy rage. Or you can buy rage and die in next dungeon - not for a critical mistake, like engaing in PvP when already crippled. For a random spawn behind a door.
- Sometimes you don't even do mistakes. You're just rowing, and SUDDENLY a whole knarr 1-hits you.
- Many PvP encounters are a comparison who has more water on their belt, with a 1-hour running marathon.
List can be expanded.
Yes, making thw world less deadly makes it more casual, but I'd better play in a lively world of semi-casuals, than in a world with just 100 people, who are constantly exploiting, botting and making nazi symbols.

Though, I also should mention that my PvP experience is extremely low, mostly because I don't see any interesting sides in it in current state.

[Granger]

Though, I also should mention that my PvP experience is extremely low, mostly because I don't see any interesting sides in it in current state.

My educated guess is that this stance likely is that of the majority of players that have (or had) a character in this world - a group which, as some argue, is quickly losing interest so ones who see PvP as the point of the game seem to run out of victims and ask for easier access to what's left.

I'm not sure if the OP suggestion would help with furthering PvP, just convinced that the downsides stemming from the open PvP + permadeath + slow but endless character development approach quench the interest in staying in the game of sadly way too many.

Permadeath (voluntarily and especially when not) with having to grind back up for weeks/months simply dosn't work for most - leading to the conclusion of either permadeath having to go (which sounded like happening for a while with the rage toggle, at least for the involuntary participants, till we learned of that just being a red herring) or the penalty of death must be lowered to palatable levels (for everyone, not just faction members who have access to nice stuff in abundance).

Similar arguments can be made for siege, it always having a boolean outcome (failure vs. complete base death) makes balancing it next to impossible and massively reduces the possible frequency for it to happen (because either it is futile to try or we quickly run out of bases to destroy).

Thus I agree with

Yes, making thw world less deadly makes it more casual, but I'd better play in a lively world of semi-casuals, than in a world with just 100 people, who are constantly exploiting, botting and making nazi symbols.