Paranormal_Researcher wrote:
pfft, people were talking about the venekor pop. before level locking was fixed, I was on the days before and after that fix.
The population didnt change much, the /who reported the same news for months and was reporting the same until I went to nagafen.
Only thing is that same old report was jack crap...especially on weekday mornings. 
I remember those days. People were talking about the population...but they were talking about the T7 (top at that time) population.
The lower tiers were packed with people. You could routinely find a x2, x3, or even sometimes a x4 vs x2,3,4 going on in Antonica as well as multiple groups hunting the Commonlands. The Caves always had PvP as did the T3 and T4 zones.
Where did all of those people go? Very few people seem to be left at end game...sooooooo...one might think that the removal of level locking chased many people away.
Whether that statement is true or not, it is blazingly obvious that there used to be easy to find, quick to outfit, and minimal effort to toon build, PvP in T2 - T4. Now there is none...well not none, but so close to none as to be fully acceptable to use that word.
Bring back level locking. Newbies getting killed by twinked toons is much better than newbies saying "Uhm...where is the PvP in this game? What? Its in T8? I need to farm relentlessly for hours to compete there? I need to play a scout too? /exit"
Seliri@Nagafen wrote:
Ceolus wrote:
Ibunubi wrote:
I like the idea of armor damage from PvP as an addition to this "revised system". I'd say that's fair since they do it anyway with PvE, and it would help curb (even somewhat is acceptable) the expected continuous zerg.
Rereading the fix for revive zerging, it's starting to not sound as great anymore. There's too many factors that can keep people in combat and potentially keep people dead unable to do anything for any amount of time, which is all just a guess from vague information. The distance rule should be put in for revive points, instead. Example - Cannot revive within 2000m of where you died, etc. (That is obviously with Kunark zones in mind.)
QFE. Great "distance rule" idea.
Ibunubi's ideas are good, as well as Ceolus' support of them, except the cap would likely be best on terms of zone proportion, with maybe a limit of 1,000 meters (respawning in an adjacent zone would then be an option if there wasn't enough distance from your point of engagement and a revive point). This would also promote dispersing PvP into the less active areas. 
Adding armor damage is good. The ideas listed above, quoted, are goods! They would support the stimulation of roaming like Zexxi and many others advocate. Other people in this thread are simply bickering cause they think titles need to "mean something" when anything that takes any amount of time can always be circumvented (relative to peoples' ideas on what it is to legitimately acquire such a thing). The fact is that these accoutrements, these pure adornments to our characters are aesthetic and something I pursue as an alternative objective in PvP. With the changes to rez zerging, more soloing will be supported, but what needs to happen now is quoted as being written by Ibunubi, elaborated upon by myself. This will then support the distribution of activity from chokepoints to create them elsewhere.
Once those changes are implemented (max range required to respawn, reviving in next zone if max range isnt available + making PvP deaths give armor damage), then adding particular and cyclical objectives into each zone (scaled and restricted for activity from each tier) is what should be next. Player choice of gaining void shards/void tokens/regular PvP tokens should be available with such. An implementation of such a thing would, again, promote server stability and help varietize PvP activity seen. Giving regional objectives helps promote the idea of fighting for your faction, being for D'Lere or Bayle over YOURSELF. Right now, EQ2 PvP lacks any sense of service and belonging unless you carve your niche into a tight-knit guild (which is rare for most casual players. World PvP NEEDS dynamic and reactive goals to drive constant action. This is why titles like Battlefield, Halo, and WAR are so successful. These tug of war systems never get old. Period.
Capturing and holding void portals, spires, druid rings, or town hubs (that take awhile to capture [demanding 600 points with 1 player adding 1 point for their faction while dominating the pad with only his faction] that reset once captured [remaining uncontestable for 5 minutes] would be far more engaging then what is currently available. Not only can you vie for yourself, but the control of a zone for your people. Reitemizing the lower tiers (basic PvP gear, T2-T7 Fabled/Legendary), considering scaling TSO instances to 20, placing PvP writ NPCs at all these special locations, allowing level locking with a level locking tag (1 week reuse, 30 second casting, only level lockers can attack other level lockers), and implacing token gear in the lower tiers as well would give massive returns on the shortsighted mistake it was to UTTERLY REDUCE the longevity and replay value EQ2 had.
Seriously. Ignore the bickering, the faceless, inadvertent fuming over aesthetics and consider, in solidarity, the future and life of EQ2 gameplay. If it takes hiring dedicated PvP developers, DO IT, cause your players and loyal consumers are worth it. Kinda irrelevant if it's cookie-cutter or copycat cause, for one, EQ2 offers tons more diversity even with the nerf to choice PvP takes in its current linear approach. That, and the replicating method is that already being taken in trying to appeal more and more to the solo, casual players and even the recruit a friend program. Best to duplicate what is proven, and cycylical incentivizing of PvP engagement is proven.
I'm sure you guys catalog the numbers. What's fact is that I never, EvEr see as many people as I used to when locking was active. Giving it its rightful return in the way I suggested preserves the choice of many casual, solo grinders who want the linear approach of leveling at their own pace to hit 70 (while avoiding the ultra competitive forces at the lower tiers...those who still exist and those who still completely own newbies). Something I also supported in the past was a player/developer collaborated tutorial, one where all PvP-centric ideas like those in my briefing were incorporated into quest lines where they were actually put into practice.
The above kind of things are those that need to come to Nagafen after these changes. Venekor, Vox, the servers are pretty much worthless when it comes to upholding a healthy cauldron of combat. People who strained their choices by choosing to remain on such dying servers deserve to be merged with Nagafen where actual, lively PvP environments are at least...somewhat...abound. Their titles will decay when GU#51 hits live, and rightfully as a prompt and impetus to the powers that be, in the direction all of those with the heart of EQ2 PvP at mind have been driving for.
\aITEM 1514621204 576580103:Antonican Valor Token\/a
\aITEM -1249566166 -1372535968:Antonican Spirit Token\/a
\aITEM 1465465171 -152767417:Antonican Courage Token\/a
\aITEM -1197780371 1741180442:Antonican Bravery Token\/a
(P.S. With territorial capping, multiple points can be required at these contested targets. They could require from 1 to 6 different marks that would all require players positioning upon them in order to begin capturing a region. This could then provide enough diversity for varying playstyles, or enough elaboration upon such a system to accomodate ultra active hours. Again, aside from having 1-6 local points as a prereq for contesting these locales, there could be from 1-12 obtainable regions depending upon the scope of a particular zone. With a change to respawns like was stated, this would make for PvP that's far more dynamic than what we're exposed to. Remembering to cap participation in each respective zone objective to its specific, relative tier is important.
Capturing a zone could give up to 20-30% Adventurer/Artisan/AA XP bonuses, with portions of such being allotted depending upon your proportion of control. Areas to flag as contested include quest heavy scenes, transportation sectors, and more. Giving a fourth buff option for zone control, to help incentivize thorough involvement, is integral to implementation. These could be a SINGLE choice of +10 DPS, +5 melee/ranged/spell Crit, +5 da, +2.5 spell da, +5 ae aa, + 5 reuse, +10 casting, + 5 melee/spell range, +100 in-combat power/health regen, + 2.5 overall mit, +5 crit mit, or +5 mounted/foot-based runspeed.)
(P.P.S. Evacuations near regional caps should be disabled within 300 meters, should the health of the game inspire those capable to strive for a population so strongly stable that mere involvement does enable one to imagine this as the title to return from it's slumped spiral.)
(P.P.P.S. Permanent immunity needs to be completely removed aside from city safe zones, and scenarios where players are reviving or just entering a zone should give them 45 seconds of invulnerability.)
(P.P.P.P.S Regardless, more needs to be done if a pursuit of perfection is the prospect. The option to completely separate one's self from the PvP ranking system [i.e. disable your PvP rank] is something multiples upon tons of players have continually asked for, and one I agree with. Aside from actually handling the KP respawns, the following issues should then be heavily considered as a compliment to our current PvP circumstances. The importance of not allowing players to revive until their encounter is disengaged [unless receiving a priest's in-combat resurrection] is great, and something that will also subdue misled tactics.)
