Could a PvP Task Force work?

Frosticus · 06-13-2010 01:52 PM

I just wanted to touch on a few things brought up in this thread. The OP can feel free to correct me if I'm not in tune with what he is envisioning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenswing

You didn't read my post, did you? A 90 minute TF should reward around 29 merits. This gives 50. The justification for this is the PvP element, which is no justification. The existing TFs which give large merit rewards take significantly longer than 90 minutes.

The numbers are obviously open for debate and were just a suggestion. That said, no other TF has a variable reward rate. You either get the full lot or none. This TF has one side earning above the standard merit/min and one side earning below it. I'd well imagine if the devs ever did something this cool it would be 40/20 merits, which is very reasonable.

Quote:

It could be made to work if the losing side got about 5 merits each. That puts it on a par with existing TFs, but I think the aim was to encourage PvP by creating an enormous incentive to do it. It isn't an incentive to PvP, however, it's an incentive to run this TF.

I think his goal is to introduce a really cool TF that spans multiple dynamics of the game. A deviation from the classic approach of throwing mountains of HP on to a single encounter and expecting everyone to find it fun.

Quote:

Note: Possibly you definition of 'farming' is different from mine. I'm talking about repeatedly performing the same mission because it produces disproportionately large rewards. 'Sitting at the door' is not required; that's actually more of a PLing tactic.

it has the possibility of earning above average merits and also the possibility of earning below average merits. If you were cooperatively farming it then you'd have to factor in both factions, which makes it a 180 min TF worth 75 merits. Which is barely above what normal TF's give out.

I'm going to assume that to make this a reality some sections would have to be heavily gated so that the teams progress through their content at a similar pace. This means that you would not be able to pull of a sub 30 min ITF and crush the merit/min equation. Because you wouldn't be able to bring the ratio down closer to 1/1 merit/min like existing speed/farmed TF's that would serve as a major deterrent for farming it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenswing

Out of interest, aside from FPS games, can anyone give me an example of this kind of instanced 'mission' being implemented?
[
I mean, WoW hasn't done it, and WoW is a far more PvP-centric game.

Does Guild Wars do it?

I can't think of anyone that does it off hand. But then again, no one/few was really doing anything like AE either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grouchybeast

While I fundamentally like the idea of a PVP TF...

1. Doubling the PVP IO drop rate would lead to people cooperatively farming the heck out of it (which I personally don't have a problem with, but which the devs might not like).
2. A higher than normal merit award would lead to people cooperatively farming the heck out it (ditto).
3. There's always going to an issue with a PVP TF with multiple missions, which is keeping the teams' progress co-ordinated. One team finishing their mission could automatically finish/fail the other team's current mission, but I can see that opening up farming opportunities, again.
4. An imbalance in rewards for the winning/losing team has the risk of the losing side dropping out before the end, effectively griefing the winners. Adding merits would make this more likely, as diminishing returns would kick in on repeat runs. Having no diminishing returns will bring even more farmers. Awarding an auto 'win' to the team which doesn't drop has a very obvious exploit.

1. From what I read there would only be one actual pvp interaction where pvp IO's would have a chance of dropping. One of his suggestions was a 3 KO elimination. Our understanding (which we have right?) of how pvp IO's drop tells us that they could probably increase the drop rate by 100 fold and this wouldn't create a worthwhile pvp IO farming opportunity.
2. Cooperative farming would lead to just barely above average merit/min when you factor in both reward pools. See 3 for why this wouldn't be much of an issue.
3. The content of the TF would likely be heavily gated to ensure progress is done at a consistent rate. This means that you won't be able to drastically reduce completion times of the TF. If the Tf is cooperatively rewarding just barely above avg merit/min and you can't cut that number hugely like you can for currently farmed TF's then it probably won't be farmed.
4. You wouldn't lose until you lose from my understanding of it. The pvp encounter is the last "mission". If you forfeit at that point in time you wouldn't be shaving very much time off of the TF as the pvp encounter would likely be a 10 min match.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShoeTattoo

I think the proposed TF/SF is a nifty idea on paper, and the intentions of the OP are clearly good. Implementation issues would make this very unlikely to have the intended effect of making PvP more popular, though.

I don't think that is the intention of the TF. It is largely still pve from the sounds of it making use of the doppelganger technology and only a single actual pvp encounter. My understanding of the intention is to create a cool TF that adds a lot more dynamics than what we currently have.

Quote:

The level of coordination needed to get two PUG teams set up would make getting this TF going quite difficult. Most likely SGs / VGs would be the ones to coordinate this, which substantially reduces the frequency with which teams would be likely to engage in it.

Not at all. The technology is already in place to facilitate the forming of the two faction teams. They just aren't using it.
It may result in longer TF formation times than popular ones like the ITF, but that is to be expected. The fact that it would be reasonably rewarding, reasonably fun, fairly short, and very unique would likely mean it is fairly popular. It may suck trying to run it on some of the ghost town servers that I'm told is a figment of my imagination, but that isn't an indication of anything wrong with the idea. It's an indication of something else wrong.

Quote:

I could also see this being a favorite with farmers, as at least one other does. And, those who really don't enjoy PvP would be tempted to put a single target attack power on "auto-fire" when the PvP hits, just to get the reward (there would probably be a badge, in addition to merits, and some would go for that). People dropping in TFs happens quite frequently anyways, which would seem more likely to unbalance the PvP element, rather than the opposite. Obviously unbalanced PvP would be a common outcome, which is more likely to elicit disappointment than to elicit excitement.

The pvp (at least as described) only happens in the last mission. I well imagine that if people dropped from the initial team formation the system could sub in a doppelganger for the pvp match.
As the OP proposed it it would not be popular for pvp IO farming. We know that because we understand pvp IO drops.
It would not be popular for speed farming because it would likely be heavily gated.

Quote:

The core underlying problem with PvP in COX, which this TF in no way addresses, is that many players don't enjoy doing it. That higher-than-normal rewards could even be required is one sign of that, the frequently empty PvP zones is another. The high probability of one team grinding the other into the soil on this TF because of a lack of balance in the PvP parts of this, in addition to all the problems mentioned previously, means that this would be very unlikely to "convert" many PvE players into those who love PvP.

He's not claiming to be the new messiah of pvp fixes in an earthly form of this TF. If pvp is so badly broken that it can't be used in the game then that is a pretty clear indication that CAstle took a dump all over the system. If taking this game to a new level requires hiring a dev that has a clue about pvp then I guess it is pretty clear what needs to happen.

IMO though, pvp has been dipped in enough molasses that it would actually be fine for something like this. Yes if your pug goes up against a coordinated team in the final mission it will get stomped. It is supposed to. Hence the variable reward rates.

Quote:

In more general terms, efforts to weave together PvP and PvE haven't worked in this game. In fact, the extent to which such efforts have failed has been as resounding as it has been consistent. Enter the PvP zones if you'd like to confirm this assertion. This sounds like history repeating itself, only in a more linear setting, and with the added problems associated with actually getting this proposed TF/SF to even start, as well as predictable problems preserving any level of uncertainty about how the PvP will turn out.

Again, the intentions are good, but the proposed vehicle seems unlikely to help toward achieving its larger purpose.

What efforts? they have never tried to spin pvp and pve together. Well unless we are defining 'trying' as the equivalent of me lifting a leg while sitting down and letting one rip and calling that a good effort. Zones? no they have pve that happens to occur in a pvp zone, but they aren't entwined. There is no pvp involved with BB-meteor runs, SC-hotspots, WB-nukes, RV-turrets. Pvp can spill in to it, but those activities are just pve that happens to occur in a pvp zone.

Redbone · 06-13-2010 02:50 PM

While the seed of the idea is good, I htink the logistics in this particular idea would make it unworkable.

First you have to get not one TF team, which can sometimes be difficult, but two, one on each side built primarily inside zones with low populations most of the time. The teams have to be evenly matched (numbers-wise). The teams will have to be "evenly matched" ability-wise (ATs and skills) to fufill the fun requirement. Then the tech to link the two teamns has to be ported in from the arenas and expanded to work in zones and different simultanious instances. Then you have to stop the teams from devolving into a "race to the glowie" mentalitity so they get the rewards out of the TF (XP and Inf/Pres). Then you have to suspend the "last mission failed means less Merits" tech for this one TF. Then there's the Merit reward itself, it can easily be gamed for fast rewards with little effort (speed runs are "bad' enough, but a speed run where the AV just stands there and dies without fighting back or even worse, actively HELPS you kill it would be way too much).

A PvP TF MIGHT be workable in other ways though. For instance, a TF that requires 4 Heroes and 4 Villians in the RWZ where they work cooperatively in all of the TF except the final mission has potential (but suffers some logistical problems as well, just not as many).

PuceNonagon · 06-14-2010 08:18 AM

Thanks for the thoughts. Some responses:

I'm not married to any one element of the idea, especially the rewards. The 40/20 model brought up sounds cool. I just threw 50/20 out there, because I didn't want to get tied up in the minutiae.

I'm someone who PvPs only a little, but would love to do more. Problem is that the people with whom I normally play do not have much interest in it, and part-time PvPing is not really an option, because -as I've learned- learning the proper PvP builds is whole different beast. There are few really good builds that excell at both PvP and PvE. This TF would get people who are interested in PvP, but not willing to make the full-time commitment to be really good at it, a chance to do it, get something out of it and meet players who PvP often.

Put a 30-minute timer on the last mission and the TF will not be farmed heavily for merits or drops. Think blueside respec mishes. You don't see a lot of people farming the reactor for merits.

I suppose team size is totally flexible. Two teams of three might work just fine. As long as they are the same size, it really doesn't matter.

I see no reason to resist the get-the-glowie-and-run mentality in the early mishes. It should be about speed. Throw in a Defeat All, perhaps, to insure that one stealther isn't doing all the work. The faster team would be rewarded with a strategic advantage in the final battle. This might also even the score between a PuG PvE group in the final battle against experienced PvPers. Intuitively, the PvE group should move through the earlier missions much more quickly, thereby having time to set up the zone against superior PvP foes. A good PvE team may have a chance against a good PvP team then.

If this TF is "PvP zone" meaning that the extra bonus to PvPIOs work on the TF, it'll increase their value slightly, I imagine, which might be countered by a slightly greater supply on the market.

Just my thoughts as the conversation has moved along...

Never argue with stupid people. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

@vanda1 and @nakoa2