1. rewards, rewrads are always cool
2. more smack talk, and maybe a robot button so your character would run on auto pilot while you type out the smack
3 sort out the mobs in the zones, seriously the number of awesome fights I've been in which have been disrupted by overpowered mobs is upsetting
IN MEMORIUM OF GAYBABY
CRUELY TAKEN FROM THIS WORLD WHILE SO YOUNG
[ QUOTE ]
HOwever, that all changes in PvP. Why the heck would I want to enter a PvP zone with my laisez fare non min/maxed, PvE build toon?. Im fighting at a huge disadvantage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Really? I do it all the time.
Seriously, I mean that - I regularly take my PvE-spec, IO-free Fire/Kin Corr into RV and WB to PvP with and I honestly don't notice the difference 95% of the time. I'm entirely sure that if I took that character into a high-level arena match I'd have my backside handed to me time and time again, but that's the big difference between the two - the zones, despite all the FOTMs and trashtalk, are a lot more forgiving in terms of ability and build than the arena is. I'm not a regular PvPer, nor would I ever describe myself as being in the top-flight, but I do have a great deal of experience which is usually what sets me apart from my opponents.
And as we all know, the only way to learn how to ride a bike is to skin your knees a few times. 
@Synaesthetix
"Here, take some more bees with you. You may need them."
Union: FU//LoUD
"that Syn is that that" - Mothers Love
Well I accept all the above points - but they are coming from people who at least dabble in PvP.
Irrespective of "i do o.k. with my xxx build, so come on folks!" talk, and whether you are right or wrong - the perception amongst PvPers is pretty much what I said. And I dont think they are going to be persuaded.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. PvP Builds
- nerf aid self for instance.
[/ QUOTE ]
NO. Seriously. Nerf Aid Self and squishies can only PvP properly if there is an empath in the team. Nerf Aid Self and basically you can say goodbye to anything except Scrappers, Tanks, Brutes and Stalkers in the zones, at least for soloers, and they don't make too good or interesting teams. I like to solo sometimes on my blaster or domi, for instance, both of whom have aid self. I would be solo but also on the lookout for anyone around who would make a good PuG PvP team for that extra bit of fun. Take away Aid Self's usefullness of course, and I'd probably only zonal PvP with my stalker or if I had my PvP mates with me anyway, and if a group of 'PvPers' go into a zone with a well balanced team then it doesn't make any difference, but that's not really the case for casual PvPers. Nerf Aid Self and say goodbye to solo squishies in zones, imo.
[/ QUOTE ]
But thats entirely the problem. Unless you solo, the medicine pool is pretty craptacular in PvE. I hardly ever see it on anything but masterminds and solo toons.. *except* that it is a golden marker for those PvP players we spot a mile off (you know, stealth, invis, all single target attacks, TP foe, two travel powers, assault/tactics, and medicine pool etc etc).
You say that if Aid Self was nerfed we would only see (x ATs) in the zones. But thats the problem! i.e. if you plat (x ATs) you "MUST" take Aid Self!
(Although I would disagree with you, being a PvE teamer I avoid that pool like the plague normally, and the few times I have taken a squishy into a PvP zone and engaged in combat I have done ok actually)
Its these kind of problems that drive us PvE players away from PvP zones. And that, unfortunatly, has turned the zones into virtual wastelands bar the occassional well advertised events.
And the more empty they are, the more empty they will get. Only hard core PvP'ers will enter, and the more "distilled" the population of zones gets, the less PvE 'ers will want to enter.
Im not saying I have the answers, and I have pretty much taken back all the "propposed solutions" of my OP as ill thought out. But, again, I emphasise that it is to PvE'ers that PvP zones must cater for if they are to grow, not PvP'ers.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. I can'r see why giving rewards wouldn't be a nice add-on. Actually, experience should say otherwise: sirens was much more populated when SO's meant something, RV when it was a good place to farm xp/inf... Some worth rewards (even better if they were exclusive) would be a good starting point imo.
[/ QUOTE ]
To the contrary: rewards would be a nice follow-up. If the other points are not adressed first, rewards would only create new quarrels of farmers vs. PvPers. In my eyes RV is a negative example of what happens when you lure PvEers into the zones with rewards.
[/ QUOTE ]
That all depends on how the rewards are gained - RV is the wrong way to do it, becuase that gives rewards for doing something un-related to PvP in a PvP zone.
Giving out rewards for defeating other players would be fine - there couldn't be any argument between farmers and PvPers then.
Introduce a merit system in all 4 PvP zones, and you'd see an increase in regular PvP.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
[ QUOTE ]
You say that if Aid Self was nerfed we would only see (x ATs) in the zones. But thats the problem! i.e. if you plat (x ATs) you "MUST" take Aid Self!
[/ QUOTE ]
Aid Self is not a must imho.Builds can vary a lot based on personal preferance. My blaster has no aid self yet i got no issue surviving in PvP zones.I have an ice/em tank that the epic is ice and a totally different build than the usual for ice tanks.
It all boils down to personal imagination.I can tell you now i had duels with 2 different SR scrappers fully IOed really good players within the zone with aid self and i have survived numerous times and killed them many times. It all boils down to what you wanna be able to do and what you aim.I want a nice Zonal build that can function solo as well as go full force in teams in arena and zone.Yeah i will lose the occasional duel i will win some but my toon goes on fire when i enter a team.
Its all down to what you wanna do with your toon and find a way to do it.
[ QUOTE ]
Im not saying I have the answers, and I have pretty much taken back all the "propposed solutions" of my OP as ill thought out. But, again, I emphasise that it is to PvE'ers that PvP zones must cater for if they are to grow, not PvP'ers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think this debate is really interesting and raises some nice issues and had some nice brainstorming regarding solutions to these issues.
[ QUOTE ]
Well I accept all the above points - but they are coming from people who at least dabble in PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
And how could people who do not dabble in pvp, have non-biased opinions? >_>
[ QUOTE ]
Whilst dual PVE/PVP builds might help with some of the disparity, I think the only way to have a TRULY level playing field in PvP zones is to dynamically adjust toon effectiveness based on player performance.
Sort of like a reverse handicap rating: There's a baseline (where we are now) that noone can go under, but you can get buffed above that baseline when you perform poorly in the zone. So say Toon A gets a kill on Toon B. Toon A's bonus would decrease slightly (though not below zero) and Toon B's bonus would increase slightly (up to a predetermined 'cap').
This rating then manifests itself as a buff to damage output, mez resistance and/or damage resistance etc. to those who get killed more often. The handicap could be toggleable in the arena, and mandatory in Zones.
What this would mean in practice is if PvE'er Joe came into Sirens, after getting his rear handed to him several times he would have a much greater chance of surviving attacks and/or killing other players. Essentially you wouldn't be able to gank the same person over and over without them getting stronger and more resistant to the ganking... and it would work in a similar fashion to offset "Greater Numbers versus Smaller Numbers". Eventually the bonus the weaker player/team gets would compensate them for the stronger player/team's ability (whether that ability is due to player skill, build, or team organisation).
Yes, it'd probably be extremely difficult to code. There already exists a set of global zone buffs/debuffs for each faction in Warburg though... so in theory it could be possible.
[/ QUOTE ]
I like the basic concept of this, but I would like to reverse it. Instead of buffing the person that's dying, you could weaken the person that's doing all the winning. You could explain it in a way that the person winning all the time, is getting some fatigue and his powers are decreasing in effectiveness. This is probably already programmable seeing as it's possible to track kills through the bounty system in Siren's for example. They could tie that into a global debuff, the same way they already do in the zones.
This would get you 2 things:
1. the more hardcore PVP'ers will get a bigger challenge the longer they're active. Most Hardcore PVP'ers like a challenge.
2. the less experienced player learns to play without the advantage of unnatural/outside buffs, so he/she gets more comfortable with his build/playstyle/whatever.
I really do like this idea of giving someone that is having trouble in the zone, somewhat of an advantage to balance things out, but I don't think buffing someone way beyond their normal capabilities is the best way to do it.
[ QUOTE ]
I still remember being chased around an open arena map by Mesmers Repel Forcefield and TPing about to avoid it with fondness.
[/ QUOTE ]
ah yes, that was when Force Bubble still worked properly. Good times indeed.
I don't think its PVP thats not popular enough, I think the game is not popular enough. More people, more PVPers.
He will honor his words; he will definitely carry out his actions. What he promises he will fulfill. He does not care about his bodily self, putting his life and death aside to come forward for another's troubled besiegement. He does not boast about his ability, or shamelessly extol his own virtues. - Sima Qian.
[ QUOTE ]
Well I accept all the above points - but they are coming from people who at least dabble in PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
By their very nature, they'd have to be.
Don't take it from me though, listen to what this guy has to say about PvE builds faring okay in PvP Zones:
[ QUOTE ]
(Although I would disagree with you, being a PvE teamer I avoid that pool like the plague normally, and the few times I have taken a squishy into a PvP zone and engaged in combat I have done ok actually)
[/ QUOTE ]
Sound familiar?
@Synaesthetix
"Here, take some more bees with you. You may need them."
Union: FU//LoUD
"that Syn is that that" - Mothers Love
[ QUOTE ]
I like the basic concept of this, but I would like to reverse it. Instead of buffing the person that's dying, you could weaken the person that's doing all the winning. You could explain it in a way that the person winning all the time, is getting some fatigue and his powers are decreasing in effectiveness. This is probably already programmable seeing as it's possible to track kills through the bounty system in Siren's for example. They could tie that into a global debuff, the same way they already do in the zones.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually when I first posted the idea I'd specified both (A boost for the loser and debuff for the winner) but I had assumed that the latter would be too open to exploitation by relogging or switching characters etc.
A "debuff" would also serve to actually discourage rather than encourage people to do long term pvp, since staying in the PvP zone and scoring kills would be detrimental ("If I do well I'm going to get nerfed, so why bother?", "I've scored too many kills today, I'm getting too weak here. Later Sirens!") rather than compensate the "casual PvPers" for lack of ability ("Dammit they killed me again... maybe THIS time I'll be strong enough to survive/get my own back?", "I might be [censored] at PvP, but I can try it for a laugh and if I get beaten up on enough I could kill that smug FOTM ice tanker...")
Get the idea? As Cogs says, it's the bad, casual PvPers that need a boosts, the regulars are normally good enough already and fairly happy with their performance otherwise they wouldn't be there... but penalising (regulars) for doing well is probably going to go down a lot worse than buffing (casual PvPers) for doing badly.
If there's another way to boost the loser's performance without damage/resistance buffs, I'd be for it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still remember being chased around an open arena map by Mesmers Repel Forcefield and TPing about to avoid it with fondness.
[/ QUOTE ]
ah yes, that was when Force Bubble still worked properly. Good times indeed.
[/ QUOTE ]
It still works properly. Trust me. hurricane on the other hand is useful only as -toHit.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whilst dual PVE/PVP builds might help with some of the disparity, I think the only way to have a TRULY level playing field in PvP zones is to dynamically adjust toon effectiveness based on player performance.
Sort of like a reverse handicap rating: There's a baseline (where we are now) that noone can go under, but you can get buffed above that baseline when you perform poorly in the zone. So say Toon A gets a kill on Toon B. Toon A's bonus would decrease slightly (though not below zero) and Toon B's bonus would increase slightly (up to a predetermined 'cap').
This rating then manifests itself as a buff to damage output, mez resistance and/or damage resistance etc. to those who get killed more often. The handicap could be toggleable in the arena, and mandatory in Zones.
What this would mean in practice is if PvE'er Joe came into Sirens, after getting his rear handed to him several times he would have a much greater chance of surviving attacks and/or killing other players. Essentially you wouldn't be able to gank the same person over and over without them getting stronger and more resistant to the ganking... and it would work in a similar fashion to offset "Greater Numbers versus Smaller Numbers". Eventually the bonus the weaker player/team gets would compensate them for the stronger player/team's ability (whether that ability is due to player skill, build, or team organisation).
Yes, it'd probably be extremely difficult to code. There already exists a set of global zone buffs/debuffs for each faction in Warburg though... so in theory it could be possible.
[/ QUOTE ]
I like the basic concept of this, but I would like to reverse it. Instead of buffing the person that's dying, you could weaken the person that's doing all the winning. You could explain it in a way that the person winning all the time, is getting some fatigue and his powers are decreasing in effectiveness. This is probably already programmable seeing as it's possible to track kills through the bounty system in Siren's for example. They could tie that into a global debuff, the same way they already do in the zones.
This would get you 2 things:
1. the more hardcore PVP'ers will get a bigger challenge the longer they're active. Most Hardcore PVP'ers like a challenge.
2. the less experienced player learns to play without the advantage of unnatural/outside buffs, so he/she gets more comfortable with his build/playstyle/whatever.
I really do like this idea of giving someone that is having trouble in the zone, somewhat of an advantage to balance things out, but I don't think buffing someone way beyond their normal capabilities is the best way to do it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Im not sure with all these ideas flying around here.. There are propably some Id never agree on but I cba to go thorugh all of this thread.. Ill try to comment on what I can.
Buffing someone might make more sense in metagame point of view, because the winner could reset the debuffs by exiting the zone and coming back propably.. The loser on the other hand would have an option to stay in zone and receive the buffs. Otherwise Id agree with Mesmer.
edit
[ QUOTE ]
Regarding this PvEvP thingy.I would love to see a PvE arena with the suggestion i made sometime ago with the increased mob spawns which would have a random chance of linking 2 teams against each other while in this PvE arena in the middle of the whole mob spawn mayhem.
[/ QUOTE ]
And that wouldnt be good farming place because? >_>
Everything has two sides Im afraid..
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if PvP could be "advertised". Maybe a PvE'ers PvP night?
[/ QUOTE ]
No way either. A full PvEer is hard to get into pvp, since it needs more effort to do it. No i dont mean that us pvpers got uber skills that pvp, its just, jump around all the time, try stay away from Mez, keep an eye out for stalkers. Pretty much multitasking which is hard to achieve the first days of someone's pvp hobby.
[/ QUOTE ]
The 3vP event did a pretty good job of getting us PvErs into a PvP event.
I still remember being chased around an open arena map by Mesmers Repel Forcefield and TPing about to avoid it with fondness.
As well as being turned into The Unkillable by Extremus and happily tearing a trio of blasters to pieces.
A alternative PvP specific build would be my top wish for my toons to try a bit more PvP. As is I like Fly and my AOE holds too much to lose them so I can PvP properly.
[/ QUOTE ]
While an alternative pvp build would in theory be good, Im afraid it takes far too much of the individuality away from peoples characters.. Then most everyone would have carbon-copy builds in pvp and everything would be boring.. At least for me.. I wouldnt like it 
And most importantly it wouldnt help me at all personally. So I gotta be against it.. (note: this is a personal opinion)
The best part of 3vP was the randomness of the teams (or the perception of it.. I know organisers took pains to make sure the teams were balanced). I wish something like that would take place normally, but I don't think there is any way to make that happen unless there is some sort of large arena event in which the game will assign teams from signed in players..
[ QUOTE ]
Buffing someone might make more sense in metagame point of view, because the winner could reset the debuffs by exiting the zone and coming back propably.. The loser on the other hand would have an option to stay in zone and receive the buffs. Otherwise Id agree with Mesmer.
[/ QUOTE ]
The basic idea is to balance things out dynamically based on toon performance. How that's accomplished is entirely up for debate
Buffing losers and/or debuffing winners would in essence have the same effect (better performing toons get dynamically balanced against poorer performing toons) but actively penalising someone will likely "feel" far worse ("I got NERFED!") than having the player they just killed be slightly more powerful next time. Buffing the underdog rather than actively penalising good players just seems like more people would accept it.
I'll try to sum up my personal feelings on this:
To me as a longtime PvE'er and casual PvP'er, It'd be attractive to know that if my PvE-built toons entered a PvP zone and get repeatedly ganked, they'd gradually become harder and harder to defeat. But I wouldn't really want my PvP-built toons to actively suffer simply for staying in Sirens for a few hours.
For this reason, I think the focus of the whole idea would have to be around the bonus buff/debuff "baseline". Ideally I'd see this set as current toon performance, so winners would never get penalised below where they are currently... if a toon enters a PvP zone, they would start at this baseline. If they get killed, they gain bonuses, as they kill others they lose those accumulated bonuses until they're at the baseline again. What the bonus is exactly could be determined by just how many times they've been defeated, but the idea would be to increase their survivability in combat so they can become more of a challenge to other toons.
In practice this could mean that if Stalker A kept ganking Defender B, Defender B would eventually become able to take, say, 2-3 times as much punishment before they were defeated. This wouldn't effect Stalker A's ability to kill Blaster C, but it would discourage them from repeatedly ganking Defender A, and thus potentially prevent Defender A from getting completely disillusioned with PvP.
Conversely as Defender B then learns how to use their build effectively in PvP, and starts getting kills (either on their own or in a team) their accumulated bonus would decrease... so as they learn how to PvP more effectively they become less difficult to kill until they're on the same level (zero bonuses) as the hardcore PvPers.
You could look on it as 'softening the learning curve' in PvP, as well as a way to balance uneven teams out.
It would have to be both damage and survivability imo, to do justice to both damagedealer and support toons.
I agree!
If it were entirely up to me I'd put most of the emphasis on the survivability benefits though, because being repeatedly ganked over and over again doesn't let you get to grips with your abilities and part of the idea would be getting people to learn how to PvP more effectively.
Too much +damage could easily skew things because "newbie" or "casual" PvPers would start relying on the buffs to score kills... but preventing them from being killed too often would better emulate "PvP experience". Veteran PvPers can typically survive for longer than newbies through experience, pure skill, increased movement ability, Aid Self, etc. but outside of the leadership pool and allied buffs, +damage is harder to come by.
The reason I dont like the survivability buffs that much is because you are referring to ganking. This implies multiple enemies attacking. The buffs would have to be groundbreakingly, ludicrously, appallingly humongous to be more than a speedbump to something like team of pvp blasters with some buffs..
One way would be however +HP. That is the most efficient way to prevent quick kills. And also easily counteracts stalker twoshots. In theory res(all) could do it too, but theres a fair amount of unresistable damage flying about in pvp.
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I dont like the survivability buffs that much is because you are referring to ganking. This implies multiple enemies attacking. The buffs would have to be groundbreakingly, ludicrously, appallingly humongous to be more than a speedbump to something like team of pvp blasters with some buffs..
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, ganking to me implies repeated killing of a "weaker" toon by one or more "stronger" toons.
I don't think that realistically a team of buffed blasters could be held off by one lone villain, but say, 4 blasters and an empath versus 2 corrs and a Stalker? Yeah, eventually once the Blasters score enough kills the scaling buffs would make the Villains much harder to kill. Once they're killing each other in roughly even numbers the buffs on both sides would effectively have levelled the playing field.
One caveat would be that you'd need to factor TEAM kills into the debuffing aspect... otherwise you'd have some very overpowered Tankers that just keep getting buffed and buffed, never actually killing anything themselves (which would gradually remove the buffs).
I like the "+HP" idea. Or "Resistance to all" that doesn't get affected by unresistable damage. Perhaps the easiest way would be to simply take all incoming damage and completely discard a set percentage of it, like they do currently with MM's in bodyguard mode.
I dunno, buffing the guys that are losing seems to me like rewarding someone for sucking. I don't see how anyone will get used to playing in PVP if they can only perform well when they are buffed beyond their capabilities. Conceptually debuffing someone that is winning works better if you tie it into something like fatigue.
Also, you can tie into a reward system. You don't often see people leaving Siren's Call during fights because they want to cash in their Bounty points. So you can add a factor of Risk vs. Reward in there. The challenge for the debuffed person increases, and so should their rewards. If you do that, you make it less attractive for someone to remove the debuff by leaving the zone.
I've PVP'ed since day 1 and I do know this... most if not all of the Hardcore PVP'ers in this game, like a challenge and this would certainly be a challenge. I personally would enjoy it more, if things got more difficult the longer I was in the zone, as I usually get bored after a while if things get too easy
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still remember being chased around an open arena map by Mesmers Repel Forcefield and TPing about to avoid it with fondness.
[/ QUOTE ]
ah yes, that was when Force Bubble still worked properly. Good times indeed.
[/ QUOTE ]
It still works properly. Trust me. hurricane on the other hand is useful only as -toHit.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll show you, next time I see you online.
[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, buffing the guys that are losing seems to me like rewarding someone for sucking. I don't see how anyone will get used to playing in PVP if they can only perform well when they are buffed beyond their capabilities. Conceptually debuffing someone that is winning works better if you tie it into something like fatigue.
Also, you can tie into a reward system. You don't often see people leaving Siren's Call during fights because they want to cash in their Bounty points. So you can add a factor of Risk vs. Reward in there. The challenge for the debuffed person increases, and so should their rewards. If you do that, you make it less attractive for someone to remove the debuff by leaving the zone.
I've PVP'ed since day 1 and I do know this... most if not all of the Hardcore PVP'ers in this game, like a challenge and this would certainly be a challenge. I personally would enjoy it more, if things got more difficult the longer I was in the zone, as I usually get bored after a while if things get too easy
[/ QUOTE ]
Well since we are assuming that they suck in the first place, it wouldnt be rewarding as such. more like giving them a chance to observe what is going on. Its all just a matter of point of view, as usual. On the other hand, giving someone who dies a lot some +hp etc is problematic in the sense that when a pvp zone functions properly, EVERYONE dies a lot. So Id be willing to tilt toward your debuff idea. Personally I hate being debuffed though.
ps. if rewards would increase along with debuff.. that sound like a VERY interesting idea.
[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, buffing the guys that are losing seems to me like rewarding someone for sucking. I don't see how anyone will get used to playing in PVP if they can only perform well when they are buffed beyond their capabilities. Conceptually debuffing someone that is winning works better if you tie it into something like fatigue.
[/ QUOTE ]
Conceptually you could liken the buffing to getting more and more enraged and determined to succeed next time. It's not "rewarding them for sucking" as much as "compensating them for being killed"... as they perform better the buffs would scale down again until they're unbuffed.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, you can tie into a reward system. You don't often see people leaving Siren's Call during fights because they want to cash in their Bounty points. So you can add a factor of Risk vs. Reward in there. The challenge for the debuffed person increases, and so should their rewards. If you do that, you make it less attractive for someone to remove the debuff by leaving the zone.
[/ QUOTE ]
I like that, but I'm not sure it's a problem going the other way either... if the person getting ganked left the zone they'd lose all their accumulated survivability buffs, so it makes sense to stay and keep the bounty points.
[ QUOTE ]
I've PVP'ed since day 1 and I do know this... most if not all of the Hardcore PVP'ers in this game, like a challenge and this would certainly be a challenge. I personally would enjoy it more, if things got more difficult the longer I was in the zone, as I usually get bored after a while if things get too easy
[/ QUOTE ]
Understood, but would your targets getting buffed not be just as much of a challenge as you getting debuffed?
You'd be at a disadvantage either way, the difference would be on which toon is actually being affected by remaining in the zone.
Buffing people for doing badly would encourage casual/poor players to stay, whereas penalising people for doing well would do nothing for casual/poor players at all, because they would not have control on who is killing them- some other toon could easily start killing them after the first toon is debuffed.
If enough regular PvPers feel the same way you do then maybe it'd be better to move the "baseline" down below current toon performance levels? So with enough kills a good toon would only do 50% (for example) of their normal damage, but with enough deaths a poor toon would only TAKE 50% (for example) normal damage?
That would provide both a survivability buff to "poor" toons, and a penalty to "good" toons at roughly equal levels... stacking so that one toon repeatedly killing another would eventually only do 25% damage.
It wouldn't help a support toon kill a Granite Tank, but it'd help stop that toon getting Blaster-Ganked. You could even tie in the debuffing-below-normal aspect to higher level bounty rewards, opting at the appropriate contact to allow your performance to decay to 100%, 75%, 50% for different tiers of rewards... 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if PvP could be "advertised". Maybe a PvE'ers PvP night?
[/ QUOTE ]
No way either. A full PvEer is hard to get into pvp, since it needs more effort to do it. No i dont mean that us pvpers got uber skills that pvp, its just, jump around all the time, try stay away from Mez, keep an eye out for stalkers. Pretty much multitasking which is hard to achieve the first days of someone's pvp hobby.
[/ QUOTE ]
The 3vP event did a pretty good job of getting us PvErs into a PvP event.
I still remember being chased around an open arena map by Mesmers Repel Forcefield and TPing about to avoid it with fondness.
As well as being turned into The Unkillable by Extremus and happily tearing a trio of blasters to pieces.
A alternative PvP specific build would be my top wish for my toons to try a bit more PvP. As is I like Fly and my AOE holds too much to lose them so I can PvP properly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good times... good times.