So for this post I'm going to be operating under the assumption that the PvP mechanics for RoA are good, they might not be perfect, but they're good. Afterall, the PvP mechanics are why this game still exists today. If a mechanic exists whereby PvP is generated for the sake of itself, it's destined to fail. A very small subset of players are motivated by the prospect of potential PvP, because most players aren't that good at the game. The majority of this small subset of players who *are* motivated by PvP for the sake of PvP are still driven by external factors, such as prestige or padding their ego, and an even smaller minority of players are motivated in the long term by the inherent fun of PvP in RoA, and the reason this is the smallest subset of players is because the vast majority of these types of players can have just as much fun dueling without the hassle of having to regear after every fight. For sustainable mechanics that drive PvP, PvP should be seen as a hazard, not a goal, because that's what PvP is for the vast majority of players - a hazard. Let's say that an average player is given the opportunity for great loot with a % chance that they're going to run into other players and be forced into a fight. If the chance of PvP occuring is set at 0%, then almost 100% of players would be willing to after it, but then the "great loot" stops being so great, given enough time. If you set the chance at 10%, a smaller number of players would still be willing, but the majority would probably risk it. If you set this chance to 100%, then all but an *extremely small* percentage of players would be willing. Logically, what type of players would be waiting for you? They've accepted that they're guaranteed to get PvP, so that means a few things; They're confident enough in their ability that they're willing to fight all comers, and the logical conclusion of this is that they're not 'average' players. They might not be the best of the best, but even if they're in the top 10% of players, this equates to guaranteed death for close to 90% of players, with a bit of fuzzing as players approach the 90th percentile. Now if you incorporate number of players, we get closer to assured death for all but the top 1% of players, or a group of generally equal or greater size and skill. - This is Billboards, btw. So let's do a thought experiment: Imagine if RoA was fun / engaging enough to stand on its own as a singleplayer game. Imagine if the PvE / skill progression was engaging enough so that even if you were the only person playing the game, it would still be fun. Now imagine that level of engagement incorporated into the PvP MMO environment... You might see where I'm going with this. The % chance of PvP would *never* be 0, and it would also *never* be 100%, it would just happen naturally, and more often between players of comparable skill (At least more often than now...) Now you might thinking "Easier said than done..." but you'd be surprised. Darksouls started a trend with its unforgiving combat, and this trend has seen darksouls-lite mechanics incorporated into most recent singleplayer AAA titles, such as Code Vein, and the new Star Wars game, and at its core, it's the same mechanics that have existed in PvE-focused MMOs for a decade: Allow monsters to pose a threat to the player, but allow players to play reactively to this threat in order to mitigate it. Whether it's "don't stand in the fire" mechanics that have existed in MMOs for a decade, or a giant monster visibly gearing up to swing his sword at you, they're the same thing: The player is given a prompt, and failing to react appropriately to this prompt results in a penalty, or damage being taken / death. How these mechanics could be incorporated into RoA: Let's use a Minotaur King as an example (traditionally a 7k mob, the last tier of mob before Boss): Let's say that the new Minotaur King has a base health of 1,000 (a reduction of 85.7%), but it also hits players for 300 damage. If given enough time, a player could either dodge / avoid the attack, completing avoiding damage, or they could parry it, receiving 60 damage. If you just changed the damage and health of the Minotaur King right now, Melee wouldn't be an option, because the attack animation / damage tick of Melee isn't lined up, (as is the case with around 80% of monsters), but engaging it from outside of ray range would still be a viable option, as it would only be able to cast bolts and 90 nukes. Avoiding bolts from a distance is trivially easy, so if it were made to only cast 90 nukes, you'd have a fairly engaging PvE experience under very specific circumstances. Fighting Minotaur Kings solo would be a risky endeavor, as miscalculating the trajectory of a single 90 nuke could result in 300 damage, and with its decreased health, it wouldn't devolve into a fight of attrition as you stat out from consistently taking ticks of 60 damage. These mechanics could slowly be expanded upon for other monsters, and more forgiving versions could be introduced for lower-tier monsters. Boss encounters would need the most "dev time", as they would need some XML-edited skills / spells that encourage teamwork / coordination, but the ingredients for these already exist in-game, they just need to be tweaked to encourage specific, predefined player behavior. tl;dr: Improving PvE is the most important thing the devs could focus on right now, most notably resulting in long term, sustainable, natural PvP.