Announcements

Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2

Please read the current update for instructions on downloading the latest update. Players with Mac versions of the game will not be affected, but you will have a slightly longer wait for your version of the new maps. Please make a copy of your character folder before running the new update, just to make sure you don't lose any of your custom work.

It looks like we can give everyone a list of minimum specs for running City of Titans. Please keep in mind that this is 'for now' until we are able to add more graphics and other system refinements. Currently you will need :
Windows 10 or later required; no Intel integrated graphics like UHD, must have AMD or NVIDIA card or discrete chipset with 4Gb or more of VRAM
At least 16GB of main DRAM.
These stats may change as we continue to test.

To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.

Understanding PvP: A Layman's Analysis

22 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sand_Trout
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 4 months ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/22/2014 - 22:17
Understanding PvP: A Layman's Analysis

Hello! I hope you brought plenty of salt, because I'm far more experienced in playing games and developing them, so my thoughts should be taken with enough salt to turn a side of beef into jerky.

Still, I think its important to lay out my observations of what is necessary, what is fun, and what is not fun in PvP (your mileage my vary). This will be very low-level, general stuff that crosses several genres, but I will try to provide examples from what I know.

The necessary: There are two primary fundamentals that I've seen that are consistently necessary for PvP to occur in a non-frustrating manner: Engagement and Objective.

Engagement: Engagement is the ability to initiate PvP on an unwilling participant and limit their ability to escape long enough to kill them. I emphasize "unwilling" because it is assumed that most players will only choose fight when they think they have an advantage, and will attempt to escape if they no longer believe they have the advantage. Very few people will be willing participants when they know that they will loose.

In most modern shooters, this takes the form of being able to just kill the target quicker than they can react and get to cover. In MOBAs, it's CC effects like snares, stuns, and slows. In EvE Online, it's specialized modules that prevent warp and slow a target's non-warp speed. This usually isn't, and shouldn't be a 100% guarantee of a kill, depending on circumstances, but it should allow the person initiating PvP a > 50% chance of completing the kill, provided the target doesn't kill them first. This keeps the initiation of PvP rewarding in one way or another, so that it doesn't become a pointless endeavor of "fight until I'm loosing, then just leave" with no one dying. Some circumstances simply do not allow for a successful engage, but this is a necessary thing to allow players some amount of respite from the stress of PvP. However, it's abuse leads to the second necessity

Objective: Players frequently need something to draw them out into exposed territory where they can get engaged on, and while PvP itself is enough for some, this lends itself to caution and staying in places where the player has enough of an advantage/safety-net that a successful engagement by an enemy is unlikely. The Objective is a reason for players to expose themselves to an engagement.

Objectives can be as varied as the games they're in. In shooters, it's usually a control point or an object that 1 of the teams needs to destroy while the other needs to protect. In MOBAs, it's the Towers and Nexus/ancient/ect. along with certain jungle bonuses. In EvE online the objective is frequently however an individual or organization makes money (too varied to list here), or some structure they want to protect.

Whatever it is, the Objective gives players a motivation to expose themselves to Engagement, usually by rewarding them for completing the Objective. This means that the rewards for success must justify the risk of frustration from dying. CoX, IMO failed at this because the personal benefits were tiny for completing objectives, relative to the time time and risk invested compared to the typical PvE content. This might be flame-bait, but for PvP to be successful in a game like CoT, that is going to have mixed PvE and PvP content, if it even has PvP, Success in a PvP objective needs to be more rewarding than standard PvE content, and potentially by a significant margin. To put it another way, the Objective needs to be worth dying for.

The Fun: This is pure YMMV territory here, but the most fun PvP for me in general is very aggressive game design that rewards going for the kill when you have the jump on someone. Games that allow so much defense that two players will just be wailing on each other for several minutes really doesn't appeal to me much. In any case, design in the Objectives that encourages aggression that leaves the aggressors exposed to Engagement leads to a lot of fun, because while the Aggressors are exposed, they have the initiative, meaning the defenders must scramble under a time-limit in order to take advantage of the situation appropriately. In general, it is my opinion that encouraging Aggression in PvP leads to more fun all around.

One thing that I've found that aids aggression on objectives is a limited ability to gain information about hostile players in the area. Most players will be familiar with the "radar" from shooters that, sometimes conditionally, shows where hostile players are relative to your own. Perhaps an ability that is on a medium/long cooldown that sweeps the area for hostile players, or an inspiration-like device that you can only have so many on your character at a given time would appropriate.

The Unfun: Of the unfun things that can happen to a player, Total Lockdown is probably the worst. Being on the battlefield, watching yourself/allies die, while being chain-stunned/held/ECMed is incredibly frustrating. In a game about empowerment, one of the worst things you can do to a player is leave them alive, but completely unable to do anything. However, limiting Total Lockdown has to be balanced against the ability to Engage as well, which is part of why I think CoX PvP had so much trouble. Shooters don't typically rely on status effects outside of the occasional flash-bang or similar short-duration device, but MOBAs use a mix of stuns, snares, slows and relatively short time to death, even on tanks, to mitigate the frustration of the Total Lockdown. EVE Online's ECM mechanic is probably the most hated in the game for this reason.

Those were just some of my thoughts on the topic, and I hope they help someone, somewhere.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Disclaimer: I'm a non-PVPer

Disclaimer: I'm a non-PVPer at heart.

Under "Engagement" you say something to the effect of "the ability to initiate PVP on an unwilling participant" I assume you mean a person willing to participate in PVP, but caught in a compromised position that they'd prefer to flee rather than fight in that particular spot. Because if you mean "the ability to victimize people who have no interest in PVP whatsoever" then the bad news (for you) is that MWM have already stipulated there will be no forced PVP of any kind. They talked about PVP instances where if you enter the instance, you're in a PVP zone and it's game-on, but people who wish to avoid PVP entirely will be able to do so.

Now, as far as the "bait" factor is concerned, I will agree that nothing CoX had that was unique to the PVP zones was good enough to make me want to PVP for it. If I had had to actually PVP a lot to get the warburg nukes or jellomen, I would have learned to live without them. Frankly, I'm not sure they could have made anything good enough to make me want to PVP for it. If the PVP reward "bait" is so good that it's practically a requirement, then I stop playing the game entirely. I think the idea of a form of "bait" to lure people like me into PVP zones is therefore not feasible. It doesn't exist and it defies any attempt to make it exist. I like Role playing, joking around with friends, cooperative missions and TFs, obsessing over power/enhancement builds, costuming, etc. I have no real interest in competitive badge hunting or competitive PVP play. I've heard people complain that PVP in a game like this is either "twich-based" meaning that you have to aim the powers using crosshairs, mouse, etc, or "won in the build phase" meaning that it's all about gear and stats. Both seem undesirable to me. One is a first person shooter, not a MMORPG, as far as I'm concerned (and I don't play FPS games), and the other is an incessant gear grind which even the PVPers admit is a frustrating pain in the ass in the sense that you can work for ages to try to get the gear you want, then get into a fight and make no mistakes and still lose due to the other guy having superior gear. I actually enjoy the gear grinding, to some extent, but not the PVP that it's supposed to enable.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
One idea I had in a different

One idea I had in a different thread was this: I've noticed that my friends who are competitive and do PVP tend to do so because they want to prove they're the best and get glory and recognition for such. It was thus my idea to have pay-to-enter PVP tournaments (1 on 1, 3 on 3, etc) where the winners get officially recognized somehow (on the website) and get some kind of prizes (t-shirt, mousepad, other physical swag, in-game stuff like Inf or IOs etc, store credit, free VIP play time, etc). Also, you could have things like Task Forces that TWO teams compete against each other to do, either fastest time to completion (with the ability to see the other team's progress) or true PVP style.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

dawnofcrow
dawnofcrow's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 08:56
y i like pvp for fun of it

y i like pvp for fun of it and game like dark soul 1 2 and demon soul Dark souls 2 Mirror Knight Boss fight summon > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khzy-vZ5xPQ

whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich

5 OClock Shadow
5 OClock Shadow's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 7 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 05/23/2014 - 09:48
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

One idea I had in a different thread was this: I've noticed that my friends who are competitive and do PVP tend to do so because they want to prove they're the best and get glory and recognition for such. It was thus my idea to have pay-to-enter PVP tournaments (1 on 1, 3 on 3, etc) where the winners get officially recognized somehow (on the website) and get some kind of prizes (t-shirt, mousepad, other physical swag, in-game stuff like Inf or IOs etc, store credit, free VIP play time, etc). Also, you could have things like Task Forces that TWO teams compete against each other to do, either fastest time to completion (with the ability to see the other team's progress) or true PVP style.

I see this in an arena kind of set up, not necessarily open world pvp. In addition to what ever rewards you get, it would be awesome to get a champion belt costume piece and a title next to your name until someone beats you, or your relinquish your title due to inactivity.

5 OClock Shadow
"The Five", "Old Scruff", "Wolfbrand", "Tashomono"
Your shaving days are numbered...

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I agree, yes, clearly an

I agree, yes, clearly an arena type deal. Open world PVP, as I just mentioned, I don't like and I don't think anything can get me to willingly participate in it with any regularity, unless getting killed a lot and maybe throwing some buffs/heals on people can get you whatever the uber "bait" they're using is. I honestly don't mind getting killed, provided I don't lose gear as a result, but I doubt I'd be able to hold my own against people who care about it and/or have a plan. Me doing PVP is like a Martian trying to play baseball, sight unseen, with no instruction. Just pure confusion coupled with a really pathetic attempt to participate in the hopes of at least looking like I'm trying to play along so as not to offend the host.

I think unorganized open world PVP is really hit or miss. CoX couldn't really get people to do it with any regularity, and I doubt CoT will if all they have for it is PVP instances. You need to give people a structure and purpose for this type of thing, I feel, like having a night of the week devoted to it or running monthly events, etc. Also, having a tangible reward for participation, even if you lose or get killed a lot isn't a bad idea. I mean give the winners something more, but give ALL of the participants something for their trouble, like the TFs did, even if it's just a randomized recipe drop like at the end of a TF. That way guys like me will be able to say "Well, nobody is up for a TF tonight, so maybe I'll just PVP for the random drop instead." Frankly one of the big driving forces behind doing TFs for me (and TFs were something I did a LOT of in CoX) was the reward at the end, even when it was a totally random drop.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Sand_Trout
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 4 months ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/22/2014 - 22:17
Quote:
Quote:

Under "Engagement" you say something to the effect of "the ability to initiate PVP on an unwilling participant" I assume you mean a person willing to participate in PVP, but caught in a compromised position that they'd prefer to flee rather than fight in that particular spot. Because if you mean "the ability to victimize people who have no interest in PVP whatsoever" then the bad news (for you) is that MWM have already stipulated there will be no forced PVP of any kind. They talked about PVP instances where if you enter the instance, you're in a PVP zone and it's game-on, but people who wish to avoid PVP entirely will be able to do so.

Sorry, I should have made this more clear, but I agree fully with their plans in this regard, and I probably should have made it clearer that I am not asking for PvP everywhere on everyone or anything of that nature. I am indeed referring to catching someone in a compromising position. Not everyone likes PvP, and even those that do don't necessarily want it all the time.

As for the objectives, their purpose should generally not to lure PvE players into PvP, but rather, to give players that want to PvP a reason to expose themselves to getting jumped within PvP zones. The rewards shouldn't be anything inherently unique, like special enhancements you cant get anywhere else, but there do need to be significant rewards either in experience or money that make it a worthwhile investment in time and risk for the participants.

As for arena setups, that would be a good option to have as well, and not necessarily only within an official Tournament setting.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Bloodwidow
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/11/2014 - 14:38
I am a long time MMO player,

I am a long time MMO player, playing many different MMOs for years. Though COH was my first. One of the reasons I play MMOs, (or used to, so many just get boring for me now) is for the pvp. Why? Because it's fun. It's more challenging going up against other players then AI that can get very boring and predictable. (Don't get me wrong, I loved the pve in COH too)

Concerning COT pvp,..
Please do NOT:
Offer some required item that everyone needs, and have the only way to get it is to play some aweful pvp that no one likes in order to force players to play your bad pvp.
Please DO:
Make your pvp so fun that THAT'S the reason people play it. Not for some item, or some thing, or whatever. No, they play it because it is FUN.

COH was fun, that's why I played it. League of Legends ( a pvp game ) is fun. Please don't turn COT pvp into some WOW (though wow did have some good pvp instances) pvp grindfest to get some items you need. Just make it fun. Look at other pvp games out there that are dominating the market because they are fun to play. They have strategy, objectives, etc.

That's another thing. When they first introduced pvp into COH, I thought it was some of the best pvp I had ever played (you could super leap into the air and knock a flyer out of the sky - golden). But, then the nerfs came, removal of travel power usage, etc. and the pvp zones were pointless. No real objectives, everything would just reset after a while.

Pvper's need/want certain things (and I am not talking special items) to make their game enjoyable:
- A way to WiN. Instanced pvp or whatever. But there needs to be a way to WIN. (pvp players accept losing, but they also want to know they "won", or achieved "victory")
- Statistics. I think that's one thing that keeps players playing League of Legends and such. They get to look up and think, "wow, I got 16 kills that match, and only died 3 times, and got 17 assists, look how well I did"
- objectives/strategy. Which has already been mentioned. And I think this somewhat counters your need for CC or a way to allow kills. If players have objectives they need to protect, they will have to stick around to protect them or let the enemy win. Though you still want some forms of CC.

Other thoughts:
CC should be short, 1 or 2 seconds at most. And those powers should have cooldowns, not be spamable. 2 seconds in pvp is FOREVER in game terms.
Everything should have a counter, or a defense, or a cooldown.
I am not saying, don't have pvp based rewards or items, just don't make it a pvp grind fest, and don't have the items/rewards a requirement to be good in the rest of the game.

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
Bloodwidow wrote:
Bloodwidow wrote:

Other thoughts:
CC should be short, 1 or 2 seconds at most. And those powers should have cooldowns, not be spamable. 2 seconds in pvp is FOREVER in game terms.

I disagree. Crowd Control is an entire class in CoT. Neutering an entire class of player in PvP because you don't like their tactic is a bad idea. Unlike other games where crowd control is a side tactic for ANY build, CoT PvP will be more about dedicated builds

PvP should most definitely not emulate DPS/Defense models of the past.. Spank and Tank will be less effective in this game as the devs have already announced.

Crowd Control Enthusiast

Bloodwidow
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/11/2014 - 14:38
So, what?

So, what?
Players should be able to lock other players down for minutes on end?
How is that fun for the other player? or even fair?
There has to be limits on CC in pvp or it just breaks, which is what the author of this article stated early on, which I agree with.
Certainly don't Neuter a class, but don't make them gods either.

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
What follows is personal

What follows is personal opinion not fact.
I personally do not think that PvP in this type of RNG combat system will ever be popular. It removes too much human reaction to be an engaging experience for a large percentage of the player base and will not attract a sizable amount of new players interested in only the PvP. Even at its height WoW had a small percentage of the player base engage in PvP (which seemed like a lot because the game had so many players in total).

The game should have PvP but either the devs should treat it similar to the way CoH did (a much smaller focus on it) or they should offer a separate system for PvP that is more twitch based. I just don't think RNG PvP will be that popular so don't put effort into it. If you want the PvP in CoT to draw in more PvPrs then the system needs to remove the RNG element and make it twitch based.

Just my personal opinion.

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
As with any mechanic if you

As with any mechanic if you want a defense against it you will need to spec for it.

Crowd Control defense comes no more free a cost than Damage defense. Players should be empowered to defend themselves against damage, crowd control, and debuffs as all three are attacks that the game has presented in their class system. But nothing comes for free.

Crowd Control Enthusiast

Bloodwidow
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/11/2014 - 14:38
I totally agree with you

I totally agree with you JayBezz.

And, I think in a game that is planning on including Heroes AND Villains from the start. You almost HAVE to have pvp in it, or it's not going to feel very alive and real.

I am not saying open world pvp (except in maybe certain set areas if they want to go there), because there is nothing more annoying to someone then ganking. And I wouldn't want to see this game turned into a big gank fest.

And why wouldn't you build pvp into a game like this?
I think the Devs should take advantage of ALL their assets, which in an MMO, one major asset is the thousands of players. I hope the Devs realise they don't need to put all the weight on their shoulders of keeping everyone entertained. Setup a world where players can also find ways to entertain each other.

oOStaticOo
oOStaticOo's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 11 months ago
Joined: 10/24/2013 - 06:21
The only fair PvP system is

The only fair PvP system is one where everybody has the same amount of hp, does the same amount of damage, has the same defenses, and has an equal chance of winning or losing all based upon the skill of the player. After that you have an unfair system. No matter what, you'll have somebody complaining that Damage needs to be nerfed, Defenses need to be nerfed, Crowd Control needs to be nerfed, Debuffing needs to be nerfed, Buffing needs to be nerfed. If you want PvP, then go play a PvP game strictly designed around PvP. Otherwise you'll never be happy with the PvP system. This is why I'm strictly against PvP in a PvE game, or at the minimum making it a separate game from the PvE game with completely different rules.

I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!

Comicsluvr
Comicsluvr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/07/2013 - 03:39
I agree, and disagree, with

I agree, and disagree, with much of what Static aid.

Players will call for nerfs even in an all-PVE setting so the Devs can't let that sway them too much. As long as the data proves out that everything is reasonably balanced then they just have to let complainers complain and move on.

However Static is right that PvP cannot be balanced without essentially writing a different game with different rules. The whole point behind CC is the other guy can't hit back. Debuffers work under a similar principle. If they can't use the tools given them then they might as well not come to the party.

At its heart CoX was a PvE game. The PvP community was verbal but never terribly large. As much as I don't want to alienate anyone from the community I just don't see PvP working in a predominantly PvE game

I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

The only fair PvP system is one where everybody has the same amount of hp, does the same amount of damage, has the same defenses, and has an equal chance of winning or losing all based upon the skill of the player. After that you have an unfair system.

To be fair there are many types of competitive games that have characters with all the stats different. Games like Street Fighter include characters with vastly differing damage, speed and defences yet they are balanced. RTS games like StarCraft have races with extreme differences in abilities and resources. Even the modern first person shooters have different weapon types, armor and classes. Sure they are not always balanced and people do complain at times but in those types of games you have much more control over the character you are playing. Its why the PvP aspect of them is considered competitive....because the human element is the focus. In CoHs PvP the focus was the powers or build. Your reaction time, aiming and tactical positioning had little to no affect on the combat (barring some obvious examples).

That's why I think that if CoT has the same style of PvP it will just not be popular and a lot of time should not be spent on it unless they introduce some innovative PvP competitions or devise an entirely new PvP system.

The idea of a PvP system that is very different than the game itself is not new. One example is the Left for Dead games. For those who don't know...Left for Dead is a co-operative fps pitting a group of 4 survivors against hordes of zombies and the special infected. The PvP pits two groups of up to 4 players against one another...on one side you have the 4 survivors on the other the special infected which operate on timers. These special infected are moderately easy to avoid or kill but they will respawn until the survivors reach the next safe area along a linear map. Once they do they switch sidea and the survivors become the infected and vice versa. This PvP system uses everything already in the game but its a unique competitive experience. I am not saying this system will fit in CoT I am just saying that PvP does not need to exactly mirror the PvE game in gameplay.

Edited to include:
I should say that I do think CoT should (and might even go as far to say must) involve a PvP component to be a rounded game. How much effort to expend on it would be based on how much of a draw the devs want from PvP.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 58 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

Games like Street Fighter include characters with vastly differing damage, speed and defences yet they are balanced.

Fighting games like Street Fighter, et al. have a relatively limited and pre-defined set of what your character can do. The challenge there is to "chain" those abilities together effectively for both offense and defense. Thus the emphasis is on Player Control of pre-made characters.

MMOs, and City of Heroes in particular, don't really "do" pre-made characters the same way that fighting games do. As a result, this comparison very quickly falls into the apples vs oranges variety as far as usefulness is concerned.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

RTS games like StarCraft have races with extreme differences in abilities and resources.

Again, pre-made units on pre-made maps, limiting the range of variables that can be brought to bear, yielding a "manageable" matrix of possible matchups that can be adjudicated as being "fair" for all sides. Once more, this level of pre-made "control" substantially goes away when discussing MMO PvP because of builds, even when those builds aren't entirely free-form (because classes, etc.). This was even true in City of Heroes, even with SO only builds. The variable ranges are just simply too wide to be acceptable for "fair" PvP of equals.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

In CoHs PvP the focus was the powers or build. Your reaction time, aiming and tactical positioning had little to no affect on the combat (barring some obvious examples).

I agree that City of Heroes felt to me like PvP was just something of a lipstick on a pig design. I say that because the fundamentals underlying the entire game engine were oriented around PvE, meaning that any and all PvP implementation was essentially a "kludge" onto the PvE system. It didn't help that anything that WASN'T damage oriented got penalized (Mezz lockout, Debuffs weakened), turning PvP into even more of a Damage Only fest than even PvE was.

All of that said, *if* City of Titans is to include a PvP mode in it at all, I'd love to see the game "revert" to using 1stPS/3rdPS control, where you "aim" with your camera direction, and have Tab Lock To Target disabled, so that gameplay can't turn into (just) a button masher since it also requires the ACTIVE control and involvement of the Player to "fight" using their character. That way you don't have Tab To Select Target styled "aimbot" capability and the engagements become more about the Player than they are about (just) the build of the character.

Yes that would mean that ping times and latency would be a factor in PvP ... as if those things aren't ALWAYS a factor in PvP regardless of the game being played. But it would essentially mean that PvP would be playing the game on Hard To Target Mode, which given the swaggering preening of most PvPers ought to play to their sense of superiority over "carebear" PvE.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
I wonder... is there a way to

WARNING: This post may well be idiotic.

I wonder... is there a way to design PvP that is truly in the spirit of CoH gameplay?

I did very little PvP, but early on, the few times I played in Siren's Call it was a GAS, even when I was getting stomped to a greasy spot. I had all my powers and it was crazy chaos but fun.

Then later, post, what was it, I13? I played PvP and it was just... boring. I guess maybe more balanced or something, but boring. I wasn't really playing my guy, he was all different, and everyone felt like a HP sack.

I don't know. I kind of think, let powers work basically the same as they do in PvE and let chaos reign. I mean, everyone is going to say that PvP is no good anyway, right, so why not just let it play like PvE and call it a day? At least then it will be... interesting, unique.

I can say that if PvP had stayed like it was at first, I probably would have PvP'd more. But then, the PvPers would have been wailing in the streets.

But then again, they did anyway. Won't they always?

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

Fighting games like Street Fighter, et al. have a relatively limited and pre-defined set of what your character can do. The challenge there is to "chain" those abilities together effectively for both offense and defense. Thus the emphasis is on Player Control of pre-made characters.

MMOs, and City of Heroes in particular, don't really "do" pre-made characters the same way that fighting games do. As a result, this comparison very quickly falls into the apples vs oranges variety as far as usefulness is concerned.
.

I was directly commenting on Statics opinion of fair PvP. His idea being total stat equality.

I picked what I consider to be the most popular game types that feature PvP to further illustrate why the PvP in CoH was not a huge draw. It trivializes or removed important competitive elements like positioning, reaction and aim. A fighting game like Street Fighter is not just about chaining attacks, its about reflexes, timing and strategy for example. Aside from a few specific situations these important human elements are just not in a CoH style PvP.

I was not drawing a direct comparison between Fighting, RTS and FPS games and CoH I was pointing out first that balance does not have to be done by forcing every individual thing to be equal it can be done by taking the whole and balancing it. To twist your statement a bit....Johnny does not need 3 apples and 3 oranges because Sue has 3 of each ....he just needs to have 6 fruit total. Now that may be a bit of an oversimplification but it clearly show what I am saying.

I was also pointing out that the flaw in CoH style PvP was not one of balance it was one of design.

Quote:

I agree that City of Heroes felt to me like PvP was just something of a lipstick on a pig design. I say that because the fundamentals underlying the entire game engine were oriented around PvE, meaning that any and all PvP implementation was essentially a "kludge" onto the PvE system. It didn't help that anything that WASN'T damage oriented got penalized (Mezz lockout, Debuffs weakened), turning PvP into even more of a Damage Only fest than even PvE was..

That's just my point. PvP based on the same style of combat you find in the PvE game just cannot be that successfully implemented IMO. As you go on to suggest....a twitch style PvP would certainly change it for the better (again IMO). Twitch combat is not the only way to change PvP to what I consider for the better...but it is one of the most obvious. The issue with this is time and resources. It would take a significant amount of both to create a new combat system, test it and balance it. This is why I say if they want to use PvP to draw in a larger amount of players it needs to put the human element into focus and not the character or powers. If they just want PvP as an alternative to the PvE game then I strongly suggest they treat it much as CoH did and not put a huge amount of time or effort into it. Either way I do strongly think there should be some form or PvP or the game will always feel incomplete to me.

Bloodwidow
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/11/2014 - 14:38
I agree with Empyrean. And I

I agree with Empyrean. And I don't want to bog down the Devs trying to create a "new" pvp system that is totally different from regular PVE.

When pvp first came out in COH, it was a blast. I am with Empyrean, I really didn't care if it wasn't balanced, or if I got stomped. It was just fun to be able to use all your powers against other players. Then when they added the nerfs, it got boring. You really weren't playing "your" toon, you were playing some other toon in pvp.

One way to help bring "balanced pvp" is to go the route of numbers. (WOW sorta does this). Have instanced pvp sessions with 40+ players on each side. Then it almost doesn't matter if 5 players are the "OP" classes. It all gets drowned out in the numbers. But, if you have 4 v 4, (like DC Universe Online) then it makes a huge difference if 2 people play the OP classes.

I want a pvp that will be easy for the Devs to inplement (so that it will actually happen), with large numbers, and objects, and be instanced. And please try to leave our powers as is.
My 2 cents...

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 58 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Bloodwidow wrote:
Bloodwidow wrote:

One way to help bring "balanced pvp" is to go the route of numbers. (WOW sorta does this). Have instanced pvp sessions with 40+ players on each side. Then it almost doesn't matter if 5 players are the "OP" classes. It all gets drowned out in the numbers. But, if you have 4 v 4, (like DC Universe Online) then it makes a huge difference if 2 people play the OP classes.

40+ is a bit much. That's Incarnate League/Mothership Raid/Hamidon Raid kinds of numbers on each side. At that point your angling towards a Cyrodiil in Elder Scrolls Online sort of experience (which, by the way, is currently ruled by zerg tactics).

And as you cite ... 4v4 can get to be a little low on the population and subject to "disturbances" in the balance.

So ... what about 8v8? Full Team vs Full Team? Might that provide enough "smoothing" for PvP with PvE mechanics to be viable/exciting?


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Bloodwidow
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/11/2014 - 14:38
8v8 is still too small.

8v8 is still too small.
Team vs team means groups will purposely form teams with all the OP classes of that week.
16 vs 16 might work as a standard.
Also, 40 v 40 is a total blast IF handled correctly. There are plenty of methods in game design to avoid zerg fests.
Different pvp objectives for one. Which causes people to break up in order to accomplish a win.
Another issue with pvp that comes up is ranking your ques. Basically, how you match sides up vs each other.
Premades should go up against premades. Win vs Loss ratio by players should try to be evenly matched, etc. But, this is another issue.
Again, numbers does tend to help all this out though.
And large number games don't have to be zerg fests if done right. (also, massive zerg vs zerg can be fun at times too :) )