Recent Topics

Ads

Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

We want to hear your thoughts and ideas.
Forum rules
Before posting on this forum, be sure to read the Terms of Use

Structured class balance suggestions belong in the Balance Proposal subforum. Class-related discussion in this section are considered as ongoing debates and ARE NOT reviewed for balance changes.
khellen
Posts: 5

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#11 » Wed May 20, 2020 3:32 pm

wargrimnir wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 3:11 pm We have explicitly and very intentionally designed the system to not reward kills with currency. Currency comes from the completion of content, which requires realm-wide coordinated effort to enable and engage in.

RvR is the gate to Fort/City content. Fort/City content is where you earn this currency.
Great, except you have a large portion of the realm thta participates and pushes to the end game content without getting into the City. So while contributing to the realm-wide coordination they don't participate in the "realm-wide" rewards. If you don't want that then have Forts drop Royals for RR80+, or have a way to convert Invader up to Royal.

Ads
User avatar
Telen
Suspended
Posts: 2542
Contact:

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#12 » Wed May 20, 2020 3:42 pm

wargrimnir wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 2:58 pm That's a long winded way to ask for killfarming for Sov to be a thing.
You just make the drop chance higher the further you push the campaign. Then you massively incentivise campaign progression at any point in the campaign even for those that know they will never be able to be on for the end rewards. You coud adjust this by aao. Have a the bonus for a limited time after a lock so you dont incentivise just leaving the campaign at a point where you side has a better drop chance. Really its just another mechanic to actually control the populations that isnt being leveraged.
Image

User avatar
Ekundu01
Posts: 306

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#13 » Wed May 20, 2020 3:58 pm

Having gated gear is fine but we currently are in an odd spot. We had players in bloodlord and invader for a while so when city released there was a huge flock to get the gear. But now pve/scs are behind the gear curve. Ranked gear just came out but has only really caught up to be slightly better than invader but still lower than warlord so i feel like it is kind of a flop. Pve needs a release of lost vale to play catch up with gear to say maybe warlord gear stat levels.

This is why we have so much xrealm/city logging. There are no alternatives to better gear. No one is going to do ranked for gear when warlord/sov is better. Pve is only being done for weapons from BS and ring from city+weekly talisman for the ring. Players are always after the Best in slot gear with the path of least resistance this has always been the case even from live. Right now the lack of options on gear is making players do what they do best, game the systems faults to get the gear the fastest way possible. We had a fairly balanced option system for gearing before city gear put it out of wack.

I thought the same thing that having medals drop from players would fix this issue but after thinking about it and seeing the nonsense that went on with forts after the defense was changed to 4 for end zone i think having medals drop from players would just result in players here farming each other in zergs and never see forts or cities because farming is easier in a zerg.

I don't think you could fully stop the xrealm/city log nonsense but something could be done to reduce it. A weekly quest would be a good start to give some medals for participating in a fort/city push even if you don't get in. Also having less of a gear gap from pve/sc would also go a long way. Not sure how close they are to finishing lost vale but that would help giving players a pve alternative. SC ranked gear is still too early to tell but I don't see that working out and would rather see something like gated sc gear using oppressor emblems but requiring oppressor tok unlock to equip the higher gear.

More options to get gear that is closer is power level is the answer. We need to break up the zerg surfing not promote it.
Trismack

Mordd
Posts: 260

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#14 » Wed May 20, 2020 4:12 pm

wargrimnir wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 3:11 pm We have explicitly and very intentionally designed the system to not reward kills with currency. Currency comes from the completion of content, which requires realm-wide coordinated effort to enable and engage in.

Suggestions like this have been heard before, they haven't been implemented because it is diametrically opposed to the concept we have implemented currently. We are very aware how simple and easy it would be to just give a teeny tiny chance for currency to drop in RvR, but this currency is not intended as an RvR reward. RvR is the gate to Fort/City content. Fort/City content is where you earn this currency.

You know all of this, suggest it anyway, and I certainly hope you're not surprised by the answer.
So your entire goal of the PVP in the game is centered around city. But you refuse to balance the realms in city fights because it is really mostly in city where Destro has large advantages, which is what you have centered the game around....

If there was ever the need for the Picard double face palm meme this is it...
Last edited by Mordd on Wed May 20, 2020 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Vladthedad
Posts: 29

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#15 » Wed May 20, 2020 4:13 pm

I somewhat disagree with the suggestion. Maybe I am in the minority, which I can accept, but I quite like having an end target to play towards (even if that target does seem v. far away as i'm only 40/44).

I think a big part of what makes me play the game is knowing that I need to go through the steps and "earn" my place among the top WBs/guilds who are properly running cities, and get a chance of getting the best gear in the game.

If we start giving out access to the best gear by simply playing the game (assuming you see that the core of the game is RvR) then that doesn't really incentivize players to participate in end-game content i.e. cities. Instead what you might see is people not really coordinating to push zones to get to cities, but rather just guild WBs roaming the lakes farming pugs for tokens. I'm sure that will quickly lead to a thread about how "Destro pre-made guilds are farming in the lakes and we should have pug-only lakes".

Just my perspective and as I say, I accept that I might be a minority.
Barbaphus - Chosen - TUP
Elhelion - White Lion - The Unlikely Plan

User avatar
phononHYPE
Posts: 569

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#16 » Wed May 20, 2020 4:20 pm

As a 2H choppa effectively without a guild and that everyone calls a bad meme... I don' t mind the grind. There absolutely have been 30 minutes of my game time spent staring at city gates, so I started making pug 6-12man groups. Every try a 12-man dps comprised of WE, ranged SH, 2h tanks that don't guard, and magus? Hey, we won 2/3 of that city thanks to ... wild luck and maybe a mirror match-up?

Point is it's doable.

Want to get in to a city? Soon as middle zone flips you got to dedicate an end zone > fort > city? At least you get you some nice rr and Vanq/Inv tokens. And I walked up-hill in the snow both way... wait, no no no, I have 6.5 toons in Invader. It's doable.

Making your own 6man, making friends, not soloing everything, it's rough. I'm not in a big guild (2/25 active in mine), so you have to step out of your comfort zone. Or respec. I hate DW twirly-bird choppa, but have done it to up my chance of getting invites to city runs (or pve). Be flexible.

Make alts.

Farm crafting mats.

Catch up on pve.

Read a book.

Thank you.



Edit: also, wait 2 months and things will swing the other way. When forts came out it was all order farming us. For months all the complaint on destro side was that order had their Second alts geared in Invader before we would finish. Things change. Currently all I see when I log in EU prime is 300 v300 in a zone and that zone takes ~6hrs to flip. If that strat ain't working for you, find a new one. Come NA prime, you know what happens with stuff like that? L2P would zone jump and put pressure elsewhere and that seemed to work well. Try it
Last edited by phononHYPE on Wed May 20, 2020 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chasing the golden carrot that is my alts.

my 2h choppa ideas
learn about Initiative

Mordd
Posts: 260

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#17 » Wed May 20, 2020 4:26 pm

wargrimnir wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 3:14 pm
Ramlaen wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 3:13 pm
wargrimnir wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 3:11 pm We have explicitly and very intentionally designed the system to not reward kills with currency. Currency comes from the completion of content, which requires realm-wide coordinated effort to enable and engage in.

Suggestions like this have been heard before, they haven't been implemented because it is diametrically opposed to the concept we have implemented currently. We are very aware how simple and easy it would be to just give a teeny tiny chance for currency to drop in RvR, but this currency is not intended as an RvR reward. RvR is the gate to Fort/City content. Fort/City content is where you earn this currency.

You know all of this, suggest it anyway, and I certainly hope you're not surprised by the answer.
This was a long winded way to say you want to drive away your playerbase.
Why are you still here? Surely you can go farm coins in some mobile game or play a shooter with perfect balance and matchmaking.
wow we all should go to other games and you can sit here and play with your self.

User avatar
Telen
Suspended
Posts: 2542
Contact:

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#18 » Wed May 20, 2020 4:27 pm

Vladthedad wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 4:13 pm I somewhat disagree with the suggestion. Maybe I am in the minority, which I can accept, but I quite like having an end target to play towards (even if that target does seem v. far away as i'm only 40/44).

I think a big part of what makes me play the game is knowing that I need to go through the steps and "earn" my place among the top WBs/guilds who are properly running cities, and get a chance of getting the best gear in the game.

If we start giving out access to the best gear by simply playing the game (assuming you see that the core of the game is RvR) then that doesn't really incentivize players to participate in end-game content i.e. cities. Instead what you might see is people not really coordinating to push zones to get to cities, but rather just guild WBs roaming the lakes farming pugs for tokens. I'm sure that will quickly lead to a thread about how "Destro pre-made guilds are farming in the lakes and we should have pug-only lakes".

Just my perspective and as I say, I accept that I might be a minority.
The issue is that end game content refers to an end state for a characters progression in a game. An end state you work your character towards but is available when you reach it. As a 40/44 you are on that game progression from the moment you log in. End game is a constantly available point in mmos that once you reach you are in and is available. Here you are at the whims of the campaign as to whether you are in end game or not.

Really end game is not applicable to an rvr mmo and probably why War actually failed because most of the complaints were missing an endgame. Players coming from wow into a game that has no end game as the campaign as a whole is the end game was too confusing and likely the same thing the devs miss.
Image

Ads
User avatar
Yaliskah
Former Staff
Posts: 1973

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#19 » Wed May 20, 2020 4:34 pm

VERY PERSONNAL 2 CTS (and no troll or taunt):

i think, if all you see in this game is "progression", meaning, "because i have nothing to win on ORvR (for exemple) i see no reason to involve, and i wait for city to make my character "progressing"; there is a problem.

Ask yourself in first place why you are looking for "progression". If answer is just "to progress" without any other goal like "shining in ORvR where i have nothing to win" maybe lot of time would be saved doing something else, like playing Pokemon Go (no offense, Pokemon Go is a great collecting game).

All this game is about fighting each other, and not about gathering best **** for no reason. Gear is a means not an end. Cause in the end of the day, no one will give a **** how your character is if you don't play it, but you. And thats not a solo game.

User avatar
EsthelielSunfury
Posts: 110

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#20 » Wed May 20, 2020 4:54 pm

I wonder what happens if people who complain about slow gear progression eventually get full Sovereign.

A part of me wants to believe they will finally join T2 fights and TM/DW/PR and stop City logging because City is the worst part of the game given how imbalanced it is and really only people who are completely narrow-minded or the ones who have never played other games apart from this one can spill the nonsense about the "Great Fights" that you have. 90% of the class complaints come from one part of the game, perhaps think about it.

The other part knows full well what happens in other MMOs and will most likely happen to this one. Either they quit or reroll an alt to re-progress again probably complaining for an easier time than last.

200 hours on my healer main, a class that is mostly shunned by organized WBs unlike the mirror class and never stacked in City because it's an automatic loss due to how the game plays at the moment, full invader ToK unlock and halfway to my first Sov item. Never had an issue with getting Fort reservation and the gear progress has been better than I thought it would be.

I mean in most of these online games you have to go through a million hoops to defeat the RNG locked behind RNG that requires you to do multiple daily nonsense and whatnot to get a sniff of BiS gear while showering you everyday with useless rewards. In here you get a very clear picture of what it takes for your next piece to come in and personally, that's a much better goal to work towards.

Vlad already talked about endgame currency being dropped from players, already a strong point.

I completely disagree with the OP.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests