Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

[Martok]

What is also demoralizing and not fun about City Sieges? You'll be playing oRvR with friends of low RR/low gear and guildies which you're trying to level and introduce to the game. Once a city opens, all friends/guildies depart and Warbands only invite top geared players and no longer about friendship.

Unfortunately your point here is valid.

[AxelF]

Imagine having input from a professional who has worked on some very well respected and regarded games, who is offering advice on how to maintain/improve player engagement and retention, and dismissing the well thought out and explained feedback with one line of snark - strawmanning the discussion and completely ignoring all of the points. Impressive!

[Rydiak]

Vladthedad summed up my feelings nicely. A change like the OP suggested would only shift the "end-game" content from one area to another, and make that other area inaccessible to a chunk of the playerbase all over again. I don't have a good answer for players "city logging", but I don't think that shifting focus from higher-content zones down to lower-content zones is the right answer. Players will always seek the most efficient means to farm something, and if that becomes the ORvR lakes then you will see City Sieges almost completely die out, or become a temporary side-effect interruption to everyone's regularly scheduled lake farm. Royal Crests were also added to high-end zone bags, so it isn't like the devs don't reward ORvR participation for progression players.

[Starx]

Imagine having input from a professional who has worked on some very well respected and regarded games, who is offering advice on how to maintain/improve player engagement and retention, and dismissing the well thought out and explained feedback with one line of snark - strawmanning the discussion and completely ignoring all of the points. Impressive!

If this is the same BW class lead she was universally hated by everyone in that group and responsible for getting BW overbuffed into the stratosphere early on. Might as well shitpost since this threads already in the gutter.

[Alfa1986]

Good ideas!

I’ve been reading all these good ideas and suggestions (or similarities in meaning) already twenty-fifth times in the last half of the year, apparently they are so obvious and are on the surface that everyone who has at least somehow reached a certain understanding of the mechanics of the game and the problems of the characters immediately pay attention to this.

[Mordd]

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.

Then the gear should stop at Conq/annihilator or vanq/oblit. They have introduced much more powerful gear into the game as the end game vs just the fight its self being end game. The devs designed a situation where you lose fights simply because they are in better gear, not that you were out played. So players want to be able to work on closing that gear gap so in future fights they dont lose to better gear but win or lose on how they played. I play for the fights, but I get wrecked sometimes simply because of gear, so I am always working to close that gap. Once I dont have to worry about a gear gap, then i can play for the simple fun of the fights.

most games dont have a gear or character progression, maybe in the particular battle but not long term. People play simply for the fight. The biggest pvp games going have no progression, so people will play a character once they are topped out simply because they are topped out. Why do you think so many people play in tier 1 endlessly. Because they can top out there easily and then have that advantage or at worst be on even footing.

If you are going to have a progression system in a pvp game, then you need to allow for that progression in pvp at the appropriate levels. Not setup a system where people only login for certain events. Give the people who want to work on their progression a reason to play all the time, not only for cities.

[Telen]

What is also demoralizing and not fun about City Sieges? You'll be playing oRvR with friends of low RR/low gear and guildies which you're trying to level and introduce to the game. Once a city opens, all friends/guildies depart and Warbands only invite top geared players and no longer about friendship.

Unfortunately your point here is valid.

Bros before Cities. Ill just roll into city with whos on. Just afk and chat after the pugs get wiped a couple of times.

[Fiaryn]

That's a long winded way to ask for killfarming for Sov to be a thing.

Does that matter as long as it induces a more active population and livelier RvR?

The reason you're getting derisive and flippant responses is because you're articulating a pie in the sky vision of how things should be irrespective of the real impact on player behavior. Game design is not a place for idealism.

[Telen]

The problem in general is introducing an end game into an rvr game. Mythic **** up. GW2 understood you dont put a defined end game that will be inaccessable to a large chunk of the players that took part in achieveing it. City was what killed WAR because they couldnt think past the wow idea that mmos have to have a defined end game. Stop making the same mistake again.

Why do you think almost every review of this game talks about how much fun the early tiers were (when populated). It wasnt just balance its because you play in the moment not with some far off goal you probably wont be around for.

[Fiaryn]

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.

Speaking of idealism...

This is naive as hell. It's not that no one plays for the sake of playing, but progression and incentives are hugely motivating in MMO playerbases. It's why MMOs live and die on live support, patch scheduling, etc. Whether progression "should" be a chief motivating factor or not does not change the fact that it IS. Telling people they're playing your game wrong is going to get you nowhere. Acknowledge behavioral patterns, introduce incentives and disincentives to channel them productively.