Reputation lock for dreaded should be red zone or higher

  • Harambae wrote:

    Darlantan wrote:

    TheCheapStuff wrote:

    Mirean wrote:

    If you don't like reputation loss, go to black and PvP. Red zone is supposed to be targeted PvP, as per the Dev post. If you see someone running around with a nice glowing weapon, it may be worth the rep loss for that one kill. If you kill every carebear you see, then you eventually get punished for trying to abuse the zone.
    The punishment needs to be a bunch of +rep players coming back and pushing your shit in, NOT the game forcibly removing you from play.SHIT

    Make a bounty board so you can put hits out on people, or a bounty system so you are more and more valuable of a target the lower your rep is.

    I'm just astounded that the game is fairly hardcore in many ways but managed to drop the ball so hard on pvp.
    Bounty system has never worked. Name a game where the bounty system actually meant something.
    Eve online
    Edit: This is the game SBI bases a lot of their mechanics off, so if you disagree, you're simply proving us further correct. /trapped


    Eve Onlines bounty system didn't nor does it still work. Plus it went through a few changes and people still don't utilize it. Its more of a feature like oh cool I killed a guy who happened to have a bounty on his head and you received the credit, but it wasn't a mechanic that was used to punish bad behavior or anything for the matter.

    So lets try again, name a game that had a MEANINGFUL bounty system?

    Edite: your edit just make you sound childish. One disagrees with your arugement, in fact points out the flaw in your arugment you simply try to say the other person is wrong just for the sake of it. Grow up.
  • Darlantan wrote:

    Harambae wrote:

    TheCheapStuff wrote:

    Mirean wrote:

    If you don't like reputation loss, go to black and PvP. Red zone is supposed to be targeted PvP, as per the Dev post. If you see someone running around with a nice glowing weapon, it may be worth the rep loss for that one kill. If you kill every carebear you see, then you eventually get punished for trying to abuse the zone.
    The punishment needs to be a bunch of +rep players coming back and pushing your shit in, NOT the game forcibly removing you from play.SHIT

    Make a bounty board so you can put hits out on people, or a bounty system so you are more and more valuable of a target the lower your rep is.

    I'm just astounded that the game is fairly hardcore in many ways but managed to drop the ball so hard on pvp.
    A bounty system would work a million times better than the current. Do you know how awesome it would be to kill off the lowest rep players for cash?Imagine catching a player like me or veton, who every beta have had insane -reps...millions of silver, boom.
    Eve Onlines bounty system didn't nor does it still work. Plus it went through a few changes and people still don't utilize it. Its more of a feature like oh cool I killed a guy who happened to have a bounty on his head and you received the credit, but it wasn't a mechanic that was used to punish bad behavior or anything for the matter.
    So lets try again, name a game that had a MEANINGFUL bounty system?
    I mean the current mechanics barely work as is, no one disagrees with saying the current goals Korn states aren't close to being met.

    I have already gotten a valid response from SBI, that the current reputation gain numbers are broken. A bounty system would work well in this game, but we can have different opinions.
    [img]http://i.imgur.com/3DyVAgJ.png[/img]
  • Harambae wrote:

    Darlantan wrote:

    Harambae wrote:

    TheCheapStuff wrote:

    Mirean wrote:

    If you don't like reputation loss, go to black and PvP. Red zone is supposed to be targeted PvP, as per the Dev post. If you see someone running around with a nice glowing weapon, it may be worth the rep loss for that one kill. If you kill every carebear you see, then you eventually get punished for trying to abuse the zone.
    The punishment needs to be a bunch of +rep players coming back and pushing your shit in, NOT the game forcibly removing you from play.SHIT
    Make a bounty board so you can put hits out on people, or a bounty system so you are more and more valuable of a target the lower your rep is.

    I'm just astounded that the game is fairly hardcore in many ways but managed to drop the ball so hard on pvp.
    A bounty system would work a million times better than the current. Do you know how awesome it would be to kill off the lowest rep players for cash?Imagine catching a player like me or veton, who every beta have had insane -reps...millions of silver, boom.
    Eve Onlines bounty system didn't nor does it still work. Plus it went through a few changes and people still don't utilize it. Its more of a feature like oh cool I killed a guy who happened to have a bounty on his head and you received the credit, but it wasn't a mechanic that was used to punish bad behavior or anything for the matter.So lets try again, name a game that had a MEANINGFUL bounty system?
    I mean the current mechanics barely work as is, no one disagrees with saying the current goals Korn states aren't close to being met.
    I have already gotten a valid response from SBI, that the current reputation gain numbers are broken. A bounty system would work well in this game, but we can have different opinions.
    I am sure a bounty system will be implemented, but it's not going to be THE mechanic that determines the behavior of players. It'll just simply be a mechanic that provides additional rewards to killing a player with a bounty on their head.

    As for the REP numbers maybe they are wrong, I don't know I am not making the case about the rep system though.
  • Darlantan wrote:

    Harambae wrote:

    Darlantan wrote:

    Harambae wrote:

    TheCheapStuff wrote:

    Mirean wrote:

    If you don't like reputation loss, go to black and PvP. Red zone is supposed to be targeted PvP, as per the Dev post. If you see someone running around with a nice glowing weapon, it may be worth the rep loss for that one kill. If you kill every carebear you see, then you eventually get punished for trying to abuse the zone.
    The punishment needs to be a bunch of +rep players coming back and pushing your shit in, NOT the game forcibly removing you from play.SHITMake a bounty board so you can put hits out on people, or a bounty system so you are more and more valuable of a target the lower your rep is.

    I'm just astounded that the game is fairly hardcore in many ways but managed to drop the ball so hard on pvp.
    A bounty system would work a million times better than the current. Do you know how awesome it would be to kill off the lowest rep players for cash?Imagine catching a player like me or veton, who every beta have had insane -reps...millions of silver, boom.
    Eve Onlines bounty system didn't nor does it still work. Plus it went through a few changes and people still don't utilize it. Its more of a feature like oh cool I killed a guy who happened to have a bounty on his head and you received the credit, but it wasn't a mechanic that was used to punish bad behavior or anything for the matter.So lets try again, name a game that had a MEANINGFUL bounty system?
    I mean the current mechanics barely work as is, no one disagrees with saying the current goals Korn states aren't close to being met.I have already gotten a valid response from SBI, that the current reputation gain numbers are broken. A bounty system would work well in this game, but we can have different opinions.
    I am sure a bounty system will be implemented, but it's not going to be THE mechanic that determines the behavior of players. It'll just simply be a mechanic that provides additional rewards to killing a player with a bounty on their head.
    As for the REP numbers maybe they are wrong, I don't know I am not making the case about the rep system though.
    Well if you want the results of testing rep based on his numbers, he's killing 16 mobs a minute solo.
    [img]http://i.imgur.com/3DyVAgJ.png[/img]
  • Harambae wrote:

    Even @Jonathan_Silverblood was a player who once thought removing teleportation from cities was a good idea, realized the effect it had on the game after it killed off all small towns, and worked towards replacing it. When you kill off ganking/pvp with what you "think" will keep them healthy, it will be too late this time.
    My work to replacing fasttravel had nothing to do with realizing removing it would hurt ganking/pvp; it was merely an attempt at finding a compromise that the developers/community would deem acceptable and be able to implement. I stand by my opinion that fast travel hurts the information assymetry that would otherwise be very good for crafters, as well as would remove the ability for so-called hardcode traders from taking high-margin items with low weigth/value and just fast travel all over the world with them.
  • Holoin wrote:

    postlarval wrote:

    Mugyou wrote:

    postlarval is being very childish. It's actually kind of aggravating.
    Oh please. The only childish people around here are you constant whiners who want to wear big boy pants but are too afraid to do it in black zones so you want to KoS in red zones with reduced consequence. GTFOThere are plenty of players in black zones who can handle themselves and are not part of a zerg. I'm sure they would just tell you to learn how to play the game.
    Really? Can you take a territory by yourself? Can you gank a player by yourself? Yes there are players managing in blackzone, but they have to avoid all pvp. Black zone pvp comes mostly in huge zergs.

    The reputation system is clearly unfair and unbalanced
    He wasn't talking of GVG or Stuff like That. But of course u can PVP in Blackzones. The Players who are crying about Reputation System are not into PVP at all. They are simply into hunting Newbies and farmers. They don't even want to pick up a fight vs. equal People. They just want to feel good by fucking other People up. Many of my Guild Brothers also fight in Redzones and it seems they can handle that PVP Reputation System pretty well.
  • Revenge69 wrote:

    Holoin wrote:

    postlarval wrote:

    Mugyou wrote:

    postlarval is being very childish. It's actually kind of aggravating.
    Oh please. The only childish people around here are you constant whiners who want to wear big boy pants but are too afraid to do it in black zones so you want to KoS in red zones with reduced consequence. GTFOThere are plenty of players in black zones who can handle themselves and are not part of a zerg. I'm sure they would just tell you to learn how to play the game.
    Really? Can you take a territory by yourself? Can you gank a player by yourself? Yes there are players managing in blackzone, but they have to avoid all pvp. Black zone pvp comes mostly in huge zergs.
    The reputation system is clearly unfair and unbalanced
    He wasn't talking of GVG or Stuff like That. But of course u can PVP in Blackzones. The Players who are crying about Reputation System are not into PVP at all. They are simply into hunting Newbies and farmers. They don't even want to pick up a fight vs. equal People. They just want to feel good by fucking other People up. Many of my Guild Brothers also fight in Redzones and it seems they can handle that PVP Reputation System pretty well
    I mean I don't think you know anything, I was on top gvg teams multiple betas in a row. I also post videos of hellgates, and our frequent outnumbered fights.
    [img]http://i.imgur.com/3DyVAgJ.png[/img]
  • Holoin wrote:

    Here is a system that will stop zergs and allow small scale pvp.

    Put a counter on every player. That counter will store the amount of attackers.
    Example, Player A gets attacked by Player B. Player A counter increases by 1. Placer C also attacks player A, now player A counter increases.to 2. Every time Player A counter increases(it only increases when a new player attacks him) Player A gets an increased buff. Lets say player A counter is 1, thenno Buff is gained. When the player A counter reaches 2, he gets a buff, like increased defense and increased attack. If player A counter increases to 3(3.players attacking player A) player A buffs increase even more, allowing player A to get strong enough to be able to beat the 3 attackers or, atleast to be able.to easily.escape the attackers.

    The system I mentioned above have a flaw, and that is that a friend could attack player A so that player A gets the bonuses and gain an advantage in battle. To prevent this, atackers(even if they are blues attacking a red) become flagged red. Those who flag red wont be able to flag blue for a very long time(hours). So basically, if a player is the first one to attack, he gets flagged red. If a player doesnt want to flag red, he must wait until he has atleast one attacker counter.
    To make small scale atractive, the buffs start acumulating after player.counter reaches 3(gain the first buff when 3 playersnare attacking)

    The system above, in combination With a softer reputation system would work very well.
    This idea isn't bad, but i have to improve it:

    Don't buff the players, instead change the amount of reputation loss so that solo PvP doesn't hurt so much. The game just has to count how many attacking each other.

    Examples:

    1 Ganker kills 1 Player:
    It is 1vs.1 so the Ganker only loose only 50% of the actual reputation loss.

    2 Gankers killing 1 Player:
    It is 2vs.1 so both of the gankers will loose 75% of the actual reputation loss.

    3 Gankers killing 1 Player:
    It is 3vs.1, all of the gankers are loosing the full amount of reputation.

    1 Ganker killing 2 Players:
    It is 1vs.2 the Ganker looses only 25% of the actual reputation loss.


    This system sounds like it get's a bit complicated if there are joining more players on both sides, but in the end it is very simple. As soon as a charakter enters combat mode, the system starts to count how many criminals attacked this char, and how many blues supported this char until he dies. Now offset attackers and supporter against each other and you get a ratio that affect the reputation loss for the gankers.

    In this way you highly support the idea of smallscale and solo PvP, while Zergs will be punished the same way as it is now.
  • Danderon wrote:


    Don't buff the players, instead change the amount of reputation loss so that solo PvP doesn't hurt so much. The game just has to count how many attacking each other.

    Examples:

    1 Ganker kills 1 Player:
    It is 1vs.1 so the Ganker only loose only 50% of the actual reputation loss.

    2 Gankers killing 1 Player:
    It is 2vs.1 so both of the gankers will loose 75% of the actual reputation loss.

    3 Gankers killing 1 Player:
    It is 3vs.1, all of the gankers are loosing the full amount of reputation.

    1 Ganker killing 2 Players:
    It is 1vs.2 the Ganker looses only 25% of the actual reputation loss.


    This system sounds like it get's a bit complicated if there are joining more players on both sides, but in the end it is very simple. As soon as a charakter enters combat mode, the system starts to count how many criminals attacked this char, and how many blues supported this char until he dies. Now offset attackers and supporter against each other and you get a ratio that affect the reputation loss for the gankers.

    In this way you highly support the idea of smallscale and solo PvP, while Zergs will be punished the same way as it is now.

    I think this is not a bad idea, but I don't understand why people keep trying to put layer upon layer of rules, trying to have everything perfectly all square and balanced out, in the end killing many opportunities for emergent gameplay. This is supposed to be a sandbox, things shouldn't necessarily be fair for everyone, and people should be rewarded for being imaginative and daring, and too many rules just prevent that from happening at all.

    Why not just let things run its course? Let dreaded people enter red zones because it makes sense to not restrict them to black zone only where small scale pvp is much harder, and it let them gank gatherers. If the ganking is too heavy noone will come gathering in the red zones anymore, but what's the big deal? Gankers will look elsewhere for a while or kill each other, gatherers will eventually come back because the areas have quieted down, gankers will start hunting them again, but this time some gatherers will have brought friends or hired security from a mercenary guild, gankers will unite and/or betray each other, mercenaries will fail or not fail to fulfill their contracts and protect the gatherers, epic things will ensue and stories will be written.

    If you let things happen and ensure there is a set of "basic" rules that make it at least playable, an eco-system will end up forming - it'll never be perfectly balanced, but it'll be dynamic, living, fluctuating. That sounds much more exciting than a huge set of strict rules that would box in all potential gameplays into the same little, perfectly balanced, boring box.
  • Svaala wrote:

    Danderon wrote:

    Don't buff the players, instead change the amount of reputation loss so that solo PvP doesn't hurt so much. The game just has to count how many attacking each other.

    Examples:

    1 Ganker kills 1 Player:
    It is 1vs.1 so the Ganker only loose only 50% of the actual reputation loss.

    2 Gankers killing 1 Player:
    It is 2vs.1 so both of the gankers will loose 75% of the actual reputation loss.

    3 Gankers killing 1 Player:
    It is 3vs.1, all of the gankers are loosing the full amount of reputation.

    1 Ganker killing 2 Players:
    It is 1vs.2 the Ganker looses only 25% of the actual reputation loss.


    This system sounds like it get's a bit complicated if there are joining more players on both sides, but in the end it is very simple. As soon as a charakter enters combat mode, the system starts to count how many criminals attacked this char, and how many blues supported this char until he dies. Now offset attackers and supporter against each other and you get a ratio that affect the reputation loss for the gankers.

    In this way you highly support the idea of smallscale and solo PvP, while Zergs will be punished the same way as it is now.
    I think this is not a bad idea, but I don't understand why people keep trying to put layer upon layer of rules, trying to have everything perfectly all square and balanced out, in the end killing many opportunities for emergent gameplay. This is supposed to be a sandbox, things shouldn't necessarily be fair for everyone, and people should be rewarded for being imaginative and daring, and too many rules just prevent that from happening at all.

    Why not just let things run its course? Let dreaded people enter red zones because it makes sense to not restrict them to black zone only where small scale pvp is much harder, and it let them gank gatherers. If the ganking is too heavy noone will come gathering in the red zones anymore, but what's the big deal? Gankers will look elsewhere for a while or kill each other, gatherers will eventually come back because the areas have quieted down, gankers will start hunting them again, but this time some gatherers will have brought friends or hired security from a mercenary guild, gankers will unite and/or betray each other, mercenaries will fail or not fail to fulfill their contracts and protect the gatherers, epic things will ensue and stories will be written.

    If you let things happen and ensure there is a set of "basic" rules that make it at least playable, an eco-system will end up forming - it'll never be perfectly balanced, but it'll be dynamic, living, fluctuating. That sounds much more exciting than a huge set of strict rules that would box in all potential gameplays into the same little, perfectly balanced, boring box.
    But...but....if we don't make red zones safe... then SBI won't get moniez!
    [img]http://i.imgur.com/3DyVAgJ.png[/img]
  • Harambae wrote:

    But...but....if we don't make red zones safe... then SBI won't get moniez!

    If SBI doesn't get moniez you don't get to have a game or server to play on ... oh noeeeeeeees ...

    It all runs down to one thing you want a game where you can kill (you call it pvp) without punishment and boast about your kills. You want fair pvp play hellgates in instances where you will actually meet other pvp people. Killing a gatherer who has no skills or gear prepared to even offer the slightest of challenge is NOT PVP. Even if you keep crying this is a pvp game.

    I had the same strife with EVE, they only allow one fitting on their ship and you where either in a PvE fitting and a (PvP) player jumped you and there was nothing you could do if you where lucky you could jam him and warp off but most of the time the fight was over in 5 seconds. Same applies here someone setup for PvE (gathering) will never win against someone setup for ganking (PvP ?????)

    Do fucking hellgates if you want your pvp fun they made 2v2 hellgates you can join solo as well. The rep system is fine and it works it keeps YOU out !
  • Holoin wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    I think a key point from my response above seems to get lost in the discussion.
    • If you want unrestricted PvP with no penalties or limits, go to the black zones
    • If we soften up the PvP rules in the red zones, they will turn into de facto black zones. We have verified this over countless tests
    It is not possible to have a PvP system that allows gankers to kill victims without limit while at the same time preventing zergs from forming who counter those gankers and while at the same time preventing these zones from turning into wastelands as normal players won't go there any more, making these zones unattractive for the gankers as well. This is a hard fact - if you disagree, please name an example game from the past 10 years where this has ever worked.
    It has never worked because the devs are not creative enough, most of the time they dont even listen to players. Its extremely rare to see devs like you guys who actively participate in conversations with the players.
    Here is a system that will stop zergs and allow small scale pvp.

    Put a counter on every player. That counter will store the amount of attackers.
    Example, Player A gets attacked by Player B. Player A counter increases by 1. Placer C also attacks player A, now player A counter increases.to 2. Every time Player A counter increases(it only increases when a new player attacks him) Player A gets an increased buff. Lets say player A counter is 1, thenno Buff is gained. When the player A counter reaches 2, he gets a buff, like increased defense and increased attack. If player A counter increases to 3(3.players attacking player A) player A buffs increase even more, allowing player A to get strong enough to be able to beat the 3 attackers or, atleast to be able.to easily.escape the attackers.

    That's a truly awesome system.

    It also has been in the game since more than 2 years - in yellow, red and black zones.
    • If multiple players hurt a single target, that target gets a significant damage reduction buff.
    • In addition to that, if an AOE spell hits a lot of players at once, the spell does more damage.
    • In addition to that, if multiple healers heal a player, the healing efficiency is reduced.
    These mechanics close the power gap between small and large groups. They do not prevent a group of 5+ players killing solo players or small groups on sight, 24/7.

    Note: you cannot design such a system that it gives crazy powerful offensive buffs, cause then it's easy to exploit as you can "charge up" your character by having others attack you on purpose.
  • Korn wrote:

    That's a truly awesome system.

    It also has been in the game since more than 2 years - in yellow, red and black zones.


    If multiple players hurt a single target, that target gets a significant damage reduction buff.

    In addition to that, if an AOE spell hits a lot of players at once, the spell does more damage.

    In addition to that, if multiple healers heal a player, the healing efficiency is reduced.
    These mechanics close the power gap between small and large groups. They do not prevent a group of 5+ players killing solo players or small groups on sight, 24/7.

    Note: you cannot design such a system that it gives crazy powerful offensive buffs, cause then it's easy to exploit as you can "charge up" your character by having others attack you on purpose.

    That's why i made some suggestions to improve the system, and take the buffs out of it:



    Danderon wrote:

    Don't buff the players, instead change the amount of reputation loss so that solo PvP doesn't hurt so much. The game just has to count how many attacking each other.

    Examples:

    1 Ganker kills 1 Player:
    It is 1vs.1 so the Ganker only loose only 50% of the actual reputation loss.

    2 Gankers killing 1 Player:
    It is 2vs.1 so both of the gankers will loose 75% of the actual reputation loss.

    3 Gankers killing 1 Player:
    It is 3vs.1, all of the gankers are loosing the full amount of reputation.

    1 Ganker killing 2 Players:
    It is 1vs.2 the Ganker looses only 25% of the actual reputation loss.


    This system sounds like it get's a bit complicated if there are joining more players on both sides, but in the end it is very simple. As soon as a charakter enters combat mode, the system starts to count how many criminals attacked this char, and how many blues supported this char until he dies. Now offset attackers and supporter against each other and you get a ratio that affect the reputation loss for the gankers.

    In this way you highly support the idea of smallscale and solo PvP, while Zergs will be punished the same way as it is now.
  • @Danderon

    The reputation loss values right are are already balanced around solo and small group PvP.

    Now, when it comes to balancing them, we have a mathematical model based on how "lethal" a zone can be such that non-gankers are still willing to enter it. If non-gankers do not enter the zone anymore, well, the zones ecology will fail and the gankers won't find any targets any more, and the zone or game will die. (which is what you see happning in lots of hardcore PvP MMORPGs)

    What we measure is the extra reward per hour PvEers and gatherers get in the red zones, compared to yellow and blue zones. Then, we measure the chance of PvP death per hour and the average value of gear lost for a non-ganker if he gets killed.

    The following equation needs to hold true:
    • Extra reward per hour > (Chance of death per hour * Loss on death)
    Now, the chance of death of course relates to how much effort it is for a ganker to recover from the rep loss suffered from the average kill - i.e. how many hostile on positive-reputation-friendly kills can the average ganker make per day without getting locked out, such that the chance of death per hour for postive-rep-non-gankers is low enough for them to still go to red zones?

    The values we have right now in terms of rep loss and rep gain for criminals are actually quite permissive. The red zones right now are more lethal on average than the black zones. We largely attribute this to the - understandable - fact that a lot of gankers like killing, but don't like to get killed in return.

    Note: You are of course aware of this, but still I think it is important to point out: There is only 1 possible case in which you lose rep in the first place: if you are hostile, and you kill a friendly, positive reputation player. Killing other hostiles, or killing friendlies with negative reputation, does not cost any rep. The indirect "kill limit" hence only applies when killing people who are strictly not criminals. And if that is too much to bear, the black zones are the place to be.
  • postlarval wrote:

    Mugyou wrote:

    postlarval is being very childish. It's actually kind of aggravating.
    Oh please. The only childish people around here are you constant whiners who want to wear big boy pants but are too afraid to do it in black zones so you want to KoS in red zones with reduced consequence. GTFO
    There are plenty of players in black zones who can handle themselves and are not part of a zerg. I'm sure they would just tell you to learn how to play the game.
    I don't have problems with black zone ganking. But unlike the red zone you'll find someone like once every hour maybe. If you're lucky. And you are being childish. If you can't see that then that itself shows you are dude. Red zones are just that much more active than black zones due to being directly around a major city. There's no real place to go in the black zone that people really "migrate" to like in the last beta. Unless I'm just missing something. Then please tell me. If I KoS in red zone I'll KoS in black zone. There's no real difference.

    But you seriously cannot think that after 2-3 months, with no reputation decay or something else being implemented this is a good system. There will be basically 0 PvP in red zones due to how high reputation will be.
  • Revenge69 wrote:

    Holoin wrote:

    postlarval wrote:

    Mugyou wrote:

    postlarval is being very childish. It's actually kind of aggravating.
    Oh please. The only childish people around here are you constant whiners who want to wear big boy pants but are too afraid to do it in black zones so you want to KoS in red zones with reduced consequence. GTFOThere are plenty of players in black zones who can handle themselves and are not part of a zerg. I'm sure they would just tell you to learn how to play the game.
    Really? Can you take a territory by yourself? Can you gank a player by yourself? Yes there are players managing in blackzone, but they have to avoid all pvp. Black zone pvp comes mostly in huge zergs.
    The reputation system is clearly unfair and unbalanced
    He wasn't talking of GVG or Stuff like That. But of course u can PVP in Blackzones. The Players who are crying about Reputation System are not into PVP at all. They are simply into hunting Newbies and farmers. They don't even want to pick up a fight vs. equal People. They just want to feel good by fucking other People up. Many of my Guild Brothers also fight in Redzones and it seems they can handle that PVP Reputation System pretty well.
    You do realize that sitting in your 500 man plus alliance (that's on the small side) corner of the black zone and freefarming all day is actually the most ez mode you can play this game. It's literally the easiest, safest, and least amount of forced PvP way to play the game.

    I do small scale in the black zones as well, but it is not fun. You run across either a zerg, or pop a solo gatherer and the entire city square empties out and chases you across 5 zones to the portal with 30+ people. Red zones actually have fun PvP. The reputation system discourages PvP in the one place fair and fun open world PvP happens........
    MyCatsInMyLap