There needs to be player/dev PvP dialogue.
By
Aces_High,
Posted on: 2009-05-14 17:14 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
[ QUOTE ]
People go to PVP zones to get badges and little else. There's a ton of cool content that's not being used or is implemented in a way that no one wants to use it (I LOVE the "hotspot" battle system in Siren's Call, for example, but that's kinda broken now plus even when we had it, hardly anyone used it)
[/ QUOTE ]
I think the content there is ok.
But just ok.
It should be epicly fantastorgasmic!
Upthread I was bemoaning the lack of rewards.
Someone stated that bribing is not the way to increase pvp activity.
I guess I got kind of simplified in my post.
I'd like to see rewards that were fairly enticing, but, as with any MMO area, the solution lies in [u]content, content, content.[u]
One thing that immediately comes to mind is a Villain vs. Hero combination Mayhem/Safegaurd.
I know that it would take some tweaking to figure out how to get this to work well.
But it could be done.
I think things like this where Red Side and Blue Side are working for different goals in a PvP environment would be amazing.
Vils are heading for the bank. Heroes gotta stop them.
No timer? I dunno. Maybe the timer still is good. Maybe just increase the overall begin time from 15 minutes to 20?
Just speculating.
I think that whole Task Forces could be built around this idea of mutually competitive, team oriented, goal driven destruction!
As one side draws closer to victory the NPCs roll in to try and turn the tide.
Obviously we'd need the NPC and characters to have an even playing field. Unlike what currently exists in the PvP zones.
But this is just one idea.
I'm sure there are tons out there that would make for great PvP content.
I'm just trying to make my earlier statement more lucid. Good rewards, but via great content. And better rewards for larger teams.
As to the, "I got my face pwn'd off in 1 second. Now I hate all pvp.", I don't blame you for not wanting to participate in PvP.
It's no fun to get destroyed like that.
And getting taunted is terrible. Trust me, I know.
I've lauded the point of comeuppance here, but it's just not being read.
But reiterating that over and over again in this thread is, as another posted earlier, not the "dialogue" I am hoping to attain.
No offense meant. I'm just saying that, "PvPers are ebil!", has been heard.
For those that say that the I13 approach is a step in the right direction, I just don't get it.
I just disagree wholeheartedly that the game should feel that different. And, to me, incredibly bland.
I wanna feel superpowered. That's the point.
Not gimped and a shadow of my PvE self.
And I'm coming from the point of view of someone not crying because they broke my, "I win!", buttons.
I mostly pvpd with my Ice/Cold Corr and my Mind/Psi Dommy.
And not very well. 
But people liked me. And they liked that I tried to get Vils more involved in PvP.
Our first Arena Match, against the long since broken up Anointed Brotherhood, was a study in futility.
But in stark contrast to the stereotype of PvPers, they applauded our effort and endeavored to help us.
Just the fact that I was willing to field Arena teams was an amazing recruitment initiative for my SG.
Soon I ended up with quite a decent roster of PvPers.
This is before they expanded SG numbers and I had to actually create 2 more SGs to hold all the activity (well... 1 was technically for semi-retired toons).
We could do damage in any zone and hold our own vs. many SGs, Red or Blue.
This offering that the learning curve is that hard is just not so.
As with any game. It's experience.
I do agree completely that PvP is an afterthought to the Devs.
Which is horribly, tragically blase.
I wish our Devs would take some cues from Craig Morrison.
[ QUOTE ]
What would be the difference between what we have now and a system that was designed ground up for PvP? Would some ATs not exist? Would it be twitch based? Would there be mezz resistance or protection? Is Loot necessary?
For instance, WAR or WOW. What would you take from our(old or new) PvP to add to theirs; what would would you take from them to add to ours?
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with Arcanaville's post. It's not so much what features the game would have (though I do feel our PvP is feature-poor). It's the fundamental assumptions about how powers interact with targets, about the relative strengths and weaknesses of ATs if you have to consider them as opponents.... things of that nature.
We mostly all know at this point that the original devs intended someday to add PvP, but it seems very clear in retrospect (and I was around back then) that at release, they had come up with how the game would work only from the perspective of player vs. mob, and maybe specifically players on teams vs. mobs. The original ATs were designed to act as interlocking pieces. With the exception of Scrappers, each AT was lacking something that would compel them to seek the company of others who could make up for it - a variation on the old "holy trinity", though less entrenched than that classic example.
Later in I4, they took this system and tried to implement PvP on top of it, and at this point we got to see how the original team/PvE assumptions didn't work out so well for this purpose. Look at the original implementation of toggle dropping, which was almost certainly a response to the nigh-invulnerability of things like the Tanker AT.
If they had considered how PvP would work in time for release (and gotten some playtime/testing in on it) they could have seen these problems coming and deisgned the PvE game differently, based on the different requirements that (successful) PvP environments call for.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
That article is very interesting.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[ QUOTE ]
That article is very interesting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't it though?
Should clone that guy and put him in charge of all MMOs.
You're only herding lolzcats tryin to hammer your hard earned money payin' public to conform to something they will always try to get around anyways.
Just make it fun.
Save the drama fer yer mama.
And back to a point I had meant to make in my previous post in regards to Devs not really caring about PvP: The Monkey Cage in the Arena is still around?
I don't know how many times I've had to reset because of that dumb map.
The players don't like it.
Get rid of it.
Basically, look at Time Bomb.
This would never fly in a game that actually considered it's powers for PvP.
Now that the Devs have separated PvP and PvE, they could reconceptualize all powers for PvP.
Basically, they could allow players to designate one of their alternate Builds as a PvP build. That Build would not have access to powers that are judged to suck in PvP (this would take probably a tyear of testing and forum arguing...mightw want to make it a seperate expansion that is outside the usual flow of Issues).
All existing powers would have PvP versions that have been reworked (including all melee sets having an early or additional ranged power). Upon loading into a PvP zone, you would be forced into that build.
Or would you still want to allow people to bring PvE builds into PvP, provided they clicked "Yes I really want to do this" 6 to 12 times?
Once you worked out how all powers were to work in PvP zones, you would have to either pull all critters from there or rework the existing critters to follow similar rules.
This would just be for zone PvP; I don't see a reason to change Arena PvP,although there would be an added 'zone rules' check box so you could fight under those conditions in the Arena if you chose to.
I'd still like to see, when you clicked to enter a PvP zone, an option popup that would allow you to join an existing team and teleport to the Leaders's location upon entry (provided the Team Leader had some kind of 'fill team' option set).
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[ QUOTE ]
That article is very interesting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, its an interesting perspective, but it really boils down to the simple fact that if you make your game entertaining enough, it doesn't need a reward system at all. You don't suddenly get a +5 sword of gemstone smashing in Bejeweled after a hundred levels. The game is designed to specifically attract the people that want to perform that activity, so they don't need to specifically "reward" it.
Similarly, if you want to retain MMO players, the best way to do so is to either addict them, or entertain them. Everything else is just implementation details.
However, it is at implementation that the ideal either lives or dies. And because no design team has an infinite ability to entertain, compromises eventually occur. The most important thing is to recognize that they *are* compromises, rather than rules. Rules you follow. Compromises you make until you can safely break.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
Well, its an interesting perspective...
[/ QUOTE ]
It's a refreshing perspective.
Especially to be espoused so prominently.
[ QUOTE ]
Craig Morrison (AoC Lead Designer) : You know, I think in normal MMO-and anyone whos worked on an MMO will probably tell you the same thing: You spend 90% of your time on the last 10% of any design, preventing players from doing stuff. [Laughs]
Because players main disposition is to break things.
And I think that rather than looking at things like that, I prefer to ask the designers to embrace the thought of putting their minds into the minds of a player, rather than seeing it as a challenge almost like, We must police them, we must force them to play the way that we want them to play!
I hate that. I know hates a very strong word, but I really do. I really, really dislike that approach to design.
.:from this interview at mmogamer:.
[/ QUOTE ]
^^
That.
That right there is what needs to be embraced across all MMOs.
If all the concern is about preventing exploits etc., fun get's lost in the extremely mad shuffle.
Players are like water, they will find a way.
Devs focusing on preventing exploits and punishing players is tantamount to running around New Orleans after Katrina with a hair dryer team.
Focus on content.
If it's fun everything else will fall in line.
The current implementation of PvP is less fun.
It is less fun because we are role playing super powered beings with much of our powers severely mitigated.
Most of our support relegated to ineffectual.
Zone and Arena content is stale.
Rewards are meh.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, its an interesting perspective...
[/ QUOTE ]
It's a refreshing perspective.
Especially to be espoused so prominently.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. Essentially all dev teams say exactly the same thing. What makes the perspective interesting is that he also makes the additional implication that most of the design teams he's worked with don't actually believe it. That's probably true to some degree, but its still an interesting position to stake out.
Particularly because:
[ QUOTE ]
Craig Morrison (AoC Lead Designer) : You know, I think in normal MMO-and anyone who's worked on an MMO will probably tell you the same thing: You spend 90% of your time on the last 10% of any design, preventing players from doing stuff. [Laughs]
[/ QUOTE ]
The proper follow up question would have been to ask what percentage of time does AoC spend addressing exploits. I'd be curious to know for context on whether Morrison's comments are hypothetical, or practical (and I recognize the statement is obviously somewhat hyperbolic).
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Ummm... did you read the article, Arcanaville?
The idea is that they would be focusing less on exploits and focusing more on fun.
The title of the article is "Why can't MMOs just be fun?".
When the point of the conversation is addressing the futility of policing the player base's exploits, then why would the proper follow up be, "... what percentage of time does AoC spend addressing exploits."?
The reason I even brought Morrison's views into this discussion is because he is promoting a paradigm shift in the mindset of the brain trust behind MMO's.
And maybe all dev teams say the same thing, but I look at the furor over AE. I see exactly what he's lamenting.
AoC needed something like this to happen as their player base precipitously dropped.
I hope they succeed. I played for a bit.
Very groundbreaking in many ways.
I don't like jogging for miles though.
My point is focus on content.
Not continuously try and pound the round peg through the square hole.
[ QUOTE ]
Ummm... did you read the article, Arcanaville?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I did. My prior comments stand.
[ QUOTE ]
When the point of the conversation is addressing the futility of policing the player base's exploits, then why would the proper follow up be, "... what percentage of time does AoC spend addressing exploits."?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because he's in a position to actualize his design philosophy. If he really believes in it, and he believes it can work, its logical to ask questions regarding areas of game implementation he may have either had an influence on or would like to have an influence on that he hasn't gotten to yet. I'd like to see the practical application of his statements. Unlike most of us, he can prove or disprove that his philosophy will work with a real MMO by direct example.
The first time he sees an exploit in AoC comparable to, say, the AE ones, AoC's reaction will indicate whether he's making a serious attempt to impose them or not.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, WAR or WOW. What would you take from our(old or new) PvP to add to theirs; what would would you take from them to add to ours?
[/ QUOTE ]
Instanced games versus open-zone kill farming, quite simply. You'd trundle up to an arena terminal, pick the game you want to play, and when enough other people queue up, off it goes. Winning team gets X reward, losing team gets Y. Heck, you could "win" merit rewards, I suppose. Or some other kind of currency to use for recipes, salvage, whatever. That seems to be the direction they've been heading anyway, with arch tickets, vanguard merits.
I'd also like to see genuine level brackets implemented, toss this auto-EX/SK business in the trash. Or maybe combine the two, 10 level brackets (like WoW's battlegrounds) but you're max level for that particular bracket by the power/stats math. I'd imagine you'd have three, or perhaps four in this game. Three being 21-30, 31-40, and 41-50. Or 20-29, 30-39, 40-49 and 50s in their own. This would curtail "new" people getting immediately roflstomped by someone with a 1.5billion purple setup, at least somewhat. You could still "twink" (to borrow from WoW's lingo, I think) your toons for a particular bracket I guess, but it wouldn't be nearly so drastic as it is now.
Those are two things I would borrow from WoW. Just like WoW though, AT/Power imbalances will always be there, there's far too much for it to ever be truly even. Just guarantee me I'll be up against another team of roughly equal number, and I'll do the best I can.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, WAR or WOW. What would you take from our(old or new) PvP to add to theirs; what would would you take from them to add to ours?
[/ QUOTE ]
Instanced games versus open-zone kill farming, quite simply. You'd trundle up to an arena terminal, pick the game you want to play, and when enough other people queue up, off it goes. Winning team gets X reward, losing team gets Y. Heck, you could "win" merit rewards, I suppose. Or some other kind of currency to use for recipes, salvage, whatever. That seems to be the direction they've been heading anyway, with arch tickets, vanguard merits.
I'd also like to see genuine level brackets implemented, toss this auto-EX/SK business in the trash. Or maybe combine the two, 10 level brackets (like WoW's battlegrounds) but you're max level for that particular bracket by the power/stats math. I'd imagine you'd have three, or perhaps four in this game. Three being 21-30, 31-40, and 41-50. Or 20-29, 30-39, 40-49 and 50s in their own. This would curtail "new" people getting immediately roflstomped by someone with a 1.5billion purple setup, at least somewhat. You could still "twink" (to borrow from WoW's lingo, I think) your toons for a particular bracket I guess, but it wouldn't be nearly so drastic as it is now.
Those are two things I would borrow from WoW. Just like WoW though, AT/Power imbalances will always be there, there's far too much for it to ever be truly even. Just guarantee me I'll be up against another team of roughly equal number, and I'll do the best I can.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good post.
I prefer the imbalance of pre Ish 13 stuff.
Nice, easy fix to pvp participation there, SpeakerJones.
Great idea.
[ QUOTE ]
Nice, easy fix to pvp participation there, SpeakerJones.
[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed. Though from WAR, I'd steal their ability to go to instances from any point in the game. They don't have to go out of their way to an Arena to join a queue for instanced PvP. Instead, they can bring up a window, select which PvP instances they want to participate in, and the first to fill up is the one you get the option to join.
A pop up shows up on your screen that lasts a good while asking if you want to join the instance, or exit the queue. If you join, you zone from where you're standing to the instance, and when the PvP instance is completed (usually a timed event) you zone back to the point where you left.
There's the hazard of coming back to a spawn of NPCs standing right where you are, but that's why you move someplace safe before clicking "Yes". They still have PvP "zones" (sections where there is open PvP") with a kind of capture the flag / king of the kill feel (similar to RV here, but without the Heavies), but you can hop into instanced PvP from anywhere, while doing anything (except in the middle of combat, the "yes" button is greyed out then).
That's what I would add to our PvP experience that WAR has.
So, like the Arena, but...
- Everyone has a portable Arena kiosk.
- There are non-deathmatch options (other than Pokemon).
Sounds good, but what about non-instanced Zone PvP? Just drop it altogether?
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[ QUOTE ]
I'd also like to see genuine level brackets implemented, toss this auto-EX/SK business in the trash. Or maybe combine the two, 10 level brackets (like WoW's battlegrounds) but you're max level for that particular bracket by the power/stats math. I'd imagine you'd have three, or perhaps four in this game.
[/ QUOTE ]
Rather than level brackets, I'd rather see Rep Brackets. Let the auto-sking remain, but the more kills you have with that character, the higher a bracket you are in. Try to match player skill to player skill.
IMHO, the build is more likely to follow the skill than vice versa. With farming, anyone can have a purpled out 50 fairly quickly and have no idea how to get kills.
Granted, you can just duo-box to farm an alt for kills to get your rep up, too...
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[ QUOTE ]
Rather than level brackets, I'd rather see Rep Brackets. Let the auto-sking remain, but the more kills you have with that character, the higher a bracket you are in. Try to match player skill to player skill.
IMHO, the build is more likely to follow the skill than vice versa. With farming, anyone can have a purpled out 50 fairly quickly and have no idea how to get kills.
Granted, you can just duo-box to farm an alt for kills to get your rep up, too...
[/ QUOTE ]
That sounds more like something that may apply better to the zones, in some fashion or another. Also, I didn't mean to imply that a purple build meant the player knows what they're doing. What I was trying to minimize was the inherent imbalance between say a lvl 26 with half their slots, and more than likely nothing but generic IOs, against a lvl 50 with everything dolled out. Skill notwithstanding, the lvl 26 is always at a clear disadvantage there. Even if the 50 is only kitted with generics as well, its significant.
That's what I was trying work around to some extent with real, separated brackets.
[ QUOTE ]
So, like the Arena, but...
- Everyone has a portable Arena kiosk.
- There are non-deathmatch options (other than Pokemon).
Sounds good, but what about non-instanced Zone PvP? Just drop it altogether?
[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't suggest dropping Zone PvP. Instead, I'd make it a "PvE content" where PvP is possible. Perhaps a form of the Mothership Raid, where if you're side controls the objective, you must defend it (prevent the placing of bombs, defend Pylon points, aid a non-buffable / non-healable AV / GM).
This way, players could get together and Raid it, PvE style, but players from the other side could come in and defend the objectives as best they could. This would give a form of PvE objectiveness that allows people to "pick and choose" when and how they fight, but still allow open PvP.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, like the Arena, but...
- Everyone has a portable Arena kiosk.
- There are non-deathmatch options (other than Pokemon).
Sounds good, but what about non-instanced Zone PvP? Just drop it altogether?
[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't suggest dropping Zone PvP. Instead, I'd make it a "PvE content" where PvP is possible. Perhaps a form of the Mothership Raid, where if you're side controls the objective, you must defend it (prevent the placing of bombs, defend Pylon points, aid a non-buffable / non-healable AV / GM).
This way, players could get together and Raid it, PvE style, but players from the other side could come in and defend the objectives as best they could. This would give a form of PvE objectiveness that allows people to "pick and choose" when and how they fight, but still allow open PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know how well that would work out in practice. Ultimately, the... "purists" from either side (for lack of a better term when I've been awake 36 hours) mix about as well as oil and water. The petty quibbling anytime PvP comes up here on the forums should make that quite clear. Now, make that an organized (and yes, instanced) mini game? Each side has to play both roles, then the winner is determined? Sounds like fun to me.
I've been thinking about zones since I first decided to post in this thread, and I don't really know what could be done with them. The very nature of a zone anyone can enter any old time lends itself to imbalance. That's not fun, which sort of takes us right back where we started, no?
I guess my bottom line goes like this... the more balanced any PvP encounter becomes, the more competitive its likely to be, and that's what really makes PvP fun and exciting, at least for me personally. Open zones very rarely work that way, no matter what sideshow you have in them.
The zones are ok.
The content needs to be refreshed.
The only people that truly despise zone pvp are those that despise pvp altogether. They are only venturing into the zones bling of some kind.
I don't understand why taking a faceplant in a mission can be completely shrugged off while taking a faceplant issued from a player is serious business.
I guess playing other MMOs with open world pvp, and a lot of FPS has tempered my opinion.
There has been some really nice ideas proffered in this thread.
I hope they are getting noticed.
I love the idea of a TF that has Red vs. Blue competing for the completion/destruction!
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why taking a faceplant in a mission can be completely shrugged off while taking a faceplant issued from a player is serious business.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's a few reasons for that.
In PvE, if you're faceplanting on every spawn, it probably means you're Doing It Wrong. (Example: team of 12, 11, two 10s and a 9, running the 12's missions at Invincible, with only a single Empath for support.) In PvP, you will faceplant, frequently, through no fault of your own, because that's just how the game works.
Also, even if you're faceplanting repeatedly in PvE, you're still managing to kill a few guys each time and slowly, slowly progressing in the mission. In PvP, the other guy is always still there, ready to kill you again.
For a PvE player, a situation where you're getting repeteadly killed while the thing that killed you remains unmoved by your efforts is frustrating. It's like getting to the end of the ITF and finding that your team is unable to make a dent in Nictus!Romulus. The only answer is to quit and try to come to terms with the fact you've wasted 2-3 hours without achieving what you were out to achieve.
Character index
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why taking a faceplant in a mission can be completely shrugged off while taking a faceplant issued from a player is serious business.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's a few reasons for that.
In PvE, if you're faceplanting on every spawn, it probably means you're Doing It Wrong. (Example: team of 12, 11, two 10s and a 9, running the 12's missions at Invincible, with only a single Empath for support.) In PvP, you will faceplant, frequently, through no fault of your own, because that's just how the game works.
[/ QUOTE ]
Umm... yes and no.
A good team will hold itself together in PvP just as well as a good team in PvE.
Case in point was just the other night in RV.
I saw a buddy in there. Rolled on in. He was on his /Cold Corr.
We we're getting tore up.
He switched to his Thugs/Pain MM. We didn't take a header for more than an hour.
The same rules apply.
If you're being farmed you're doing it wrong or you have the wrong assemblage.
The changes in PvP have unintentionally relegated, or turned off, the support characters. So, yeah... it's quite often hard to get a well rounded team going in zone PvP these days.
[ QUOTE ]
In PvP, the other guy is always still there, ready to kill you again.
[/ QUOTE ]
And vice versa.
[ QUOTE ]
For a PvE player, a situation where you're getting repeteadly killed while the thing that killed you remains unmoved by your efforts is frustrating. It's like getting to the end of the ITF and finding that your team is unable to make a dent in Nictus!Romulus. The only answer is to quit and try to come to terms with the fact you've wasted 2-3 hours without achieving what you were out to achieve.
[/ QUOTE ]
This goes back to the "Doing It Wrong" statement you made.
I'd amend it to "approaching it wrong".
PvP is meant to be a competitive, cathartic respite from the grind.
You're striving to achieve only fun.
If you roll into a zone, with the intent to pvp, and it's 11ty billion to one. Get out. That would be in the category of doing it wrong.
Try, I know it's hard with the current implementation of PvP, to create a team synergy. Or take a toon with great survivability.
Frustration alleviated. 
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why taking a faceplant in a mission can be completely shrugged off while taking a faceplant issued from a player is serious business.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because when its a player involved, malice usually enters into the equation.
If Lord Mako runs up and hits me for 2000+ HP, well.... that's the game. If you run up as a level 50 and gank my level 25 innocently trying to take down a firebase.... that feels like malice. This is often borne out by Broadcast chat after the episode. Victors often like to crow about such an "accomplishment."
People dislike this intensely.
This is why I only PvP in the arena with friends. Arena PvP is a blast.
Malice.... not so much.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem is just with the purposes of the zones. It's too easy for the zones to degrade into zergs where nobody cares about the "objectives." This is especially apparent in Recluse's Victory.
[/ QUOTE ]
During I14 Closed Beta I suggested there should be a change to RV: increase the chance for a PvP recipe to drop for a given side based on how many pillboxes they control, with the highest chance of all being during the 'zone won' phase. That might actually get people to care about capturing pillboxes and winning the zone.
I still think they should do this.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm curious- what'd be your goal there, LS? Because an immediate 'downside' I see is "Hey, villains are dominating.. Should I fight harder? Naw.. I'll just head over redside so I can take the spoils in.."
Thus turning a dominating showing by a faction- into a total slaughter, potentially.
Wouldn't that be a possibility worth actively avoiding?
Wilde/ Shelly
Still hate the visit Winscott mission- make it dropable, have it give actual exp or remove it altogether. PS- Down knows who you are.
J/ Wilde/ / AIL - Celebrating five years!
[ QUOTE ]
I have often suspected that you could drop a group of players into a perfectly balanced game and they'd never know it, because they would focus on what other players do that they can't, blame build for deficiencies in their skill, and clamor for 'theme' based buffs to already balanced classes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am certain that is true.
Ultimately, however, its not the number of complaints in a forum that show you the health of any game system, it's the percentage of your players using said game system or subsystem. If no one is using it then it's not serving it's intended purpose, to add value to the game as a whole.
People go to PVP zones to get badges and little else. There's a ton of cool content that's not being used or is implemented in a way that no one wants to use it (I LOVE the "hotspot" battle system in Siren's Call, for example, but that's kinda broken now plus even when we had it, hardly anyone used it)
[ QUOTE ]
Arcanaville's post gives a lot of food for thought. I wonder if it's possible to recreate City PvP as she describes, and how it would be received if it were handed over whole cloth. If it is what the Devs are aiming for and they are adding pieces of such a system a bit at a time and gathering data before moving forward, it might be appreciated if they said so straight out.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. It'd be nice to know what their ultimate vision is. The devs tend to be very closed mouthed about things in this game, and I do understand why, but I think they sometimes do so in instances where it does more harm than good, this being one of them. I've already decided to give up on PVP in this game and just play PVE (which, again, I think the game does very well). It's going to take some really significant improvements to convince me to come back to PVP.