What is PvP to you?

148 posts / 0 new
Last post
Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 52 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
What is PvP to you?

Item the first: I'm not a PvPer. I've dabbled a little bit in PvP but I can't claim to be good at it or to particularly enjoy it (with the possible exception of my relatively brief stint in WAR).

Item the rest:

When the "U NO U" shouting match starts between PvE and PvP, each side tends to assume that the other is some monolithic entity with only one view of the subject. I'm curious to learn how the world looks from a PvPer's perspective. Broadly put, as far as I've been able to determine, PvPers fall into two categories:

1. They have no particular interest in the likes of gear progression, just give them an even playing field and rated PvP;
2. They are interested in gear progression and want to obtain better gear to become more powerful in PvP.

Following this premise, it occurred to me that the best PvP experience a MMO could provide is to have rated PvP in which everyone is equal as far as gear goes and open world/instanced PvP in which gear does have an impact.

Am I remotely on target with my observations?

What's your ideal PvP offering? What would TPP have to do for you to break out the gold stars for the PvP?

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
well PvP is a good fight

well PvP is a good fight without the nonsense. But that is mnostly a social problem with some people cant take victory or defeat without acting like a jackbutt about it.

I wish PvP offered both a place to fight PVE built and stat toon against other pve stat toons and even kill balanced skill based pvp.

The best PVP is usually one that is in the game fro mthe start. When it's added later, lot of stuff prior that wasn't balanced with pvp in mind becomes unbalanced and when left unbalanced it becomes the normal. Then when they try to go back and correct the mistake, it usually end in disaster because the people that benefitted from the unbalanced feel they are getting unfairly nerfed, while those on the bad end or business end of that unbalance probably already have a bad taste in their mouth and not likely to be itching to return to PVP.

PVP should be balanced thoroughly before being released to the public. The amount of balance that is taken to balance PVE side about twice to five time as much time should be taken to ensure the PVP side is balanced. Because once it goes live and it sits, it's hard to change it without pissing a group off for better or worse.

Personally I like PVP battle to the death, instance pvp is probably best for me. Me vs them, or team vs team, no safe base to escape to, no unwanted people jumping in, no ganking. Man to man or team to team. And last man standing, wins. Even if I get monkey stomped, I feel like I'm ripping the other player off by either fleeing in the middle of the fight and hiding in the safe zone. They worked to kicked me a round and they should be able to get reward. In the super hero world, villains and super heros get praise for making their opponent flee and it counts as a defeat. Thus I think if an opponent flee, they still should get the rewards.

Many pvpers avoided the open zone because people rather flee than fight. If they cant one shot, they high tailing it back to base. Which makes fight less fun. And then many pvpers avoided the arena, outside that it was buggy at times, because they want to win all the time but never want to lose and want the ability to pick easy targets and flee when they get breathe on. Or like playing on the side where it's 20 on 3. One way to solve that is that if one side have 20 and 3 no more than the amount of people that person have on a team can attack that person. If that person is solo, then they cant be attacked by more than one person at a time. If they have 8, then they can be attacked by up to 8 people at a time. This should solve the ganking problem that seems to become the definition of PVP now and days. Cut down on ganking more people probably will try it, and more people that try it more attention it will warrant from the devs and more develop it can get. But like what happened in COX, had a group of hardcore pvpers that demand attention and work to be put in on the PVP side while doing everything in their power to keep people outside their group out which kept participants low and the effect of it on a relative small amount of people and thus devs had bigger fish to fry. Many COX pvpers shot themselves and others in the foot there.

In PVP if built should have some balance from the get go and balance doesn't mean at least that I know of, balanced for a select few and everyone else is flapping.

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 52 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

I wish PvP offered both a place to fight PVE built and stat toon against other pve stat toons and even kill balanced skill based pvp.

Do you mean something like a dueling system?

I never did understand why Blizzard never made PvP its own thing in WoW. It must be a very compelling set of reasons to continue to saddle themselves with the headache of having changes to PvE affect PvP, and vice versa. At least there's no question that PvP will be planned for from the very start with TPP.

Quote:

One way to solve that is that if one side have 20 and 3 no more than the amount of people that person have on a team can attack that person. If that person is solo, then they cant be attacked by more than one person at a time. If they have 8, then they can be attacked by up to 8 people at a time. This should solve the ganking problem that seems to become the definition of PVP now and days. Cut down on ganking more people probably will try it...

As you said at the beginning of your post, people being jerks is a social problem. To quote DeathSheepFromHell from another thread, don't try to solve social problems with technical solutions, because it never works. Or, to borrow a healer mantra from WoW, "You can't heal through stupid."

There will always be gankers in PvP, just as there will always be kill stealers or those guys who snatch away a chest or mission object while you're fighting in PvE.

Thanks for the feedback!

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Dudesoft
Dudesoft's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:37
Something that WoW does well

Something that WoW does well for PVP is making it worth while. Gaining reputation by killing the enemy side is great. There's also a honour limit to the level you kill at. That would also help ganking a bit. Level 10 guy can't or shouldn't kill a level 1 guy for example or lose honour.

Another great thing is the capture the flag battles. Despite your level, you're useful in the pursuit of the flag.

Not that I'm endorsing copying Blizzard or anything.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Dudesoft wrote:
Dudesoft wrote:

Something that WoW does well for PVP is making it worth while. Gaining reputation by killing the enemy side is great. There's also a honour limit to the level you kill at. That would also help ganking a bit. Level 10 guy can't or shouldn't kill a level 1 guy for example or lose honour.
Another great thing is the capture the flag battles. Despite your level, you're useful in the pursuit of the flag.
Not that I'm endorsing copying Blizzard or anything.

I think that could work.

Honour system.

And no honor in gangbanging. 10 on one. One kill one point minus 1 point per person it took to fight them. While the loser gets no point for losing but get one point per person he had to fight in that pvp instance. But if he manage to beat off multiple player attackers that attack him/her then they get bonus points while the losers each lose extra honor points for ganging and still losing.

Yeah there will always be ganking just as there will always be murderers, but that doesn't mean you give away free guns and victims to them.

HarvesterOfEyes
HarvesterOfEyes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 08:19
Game developers need to

Game developers need to decide whether their game is or is not PvP-centric.

If 'not' then they need to be prepared to tell the PvP enthusiasts that they get what they get.

Otherwise same developers might as well be playing this. You'll never please more than 20% of the PvP'ers at a time.

Get yourself right; the world has enough problems.

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 52 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
Another question occurred to

Another question occurred to me: do you like your PvP to be balanced around 1 vs 1 capabilities (evidently WoW's preference) or do you prefer the approach of PvP being balanced around groups (the approach WAR and, IIRC, SWTOR took)?

(Of course, depending on the approach taken with PvP, I imagine TPP could have specs available that are more ideal for 1 vs 1 fights and specs that are more geared toward being effective in a group.)

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
I prefer one on one.

I prefer one on one. Especially if there are two opposing factions (heroes/villains). As seen in COX, most people gravitated towards heroe side due to a number of factors which meant that even playing a villain in PVP group ended up usually out numbered. And given that it seemed not many like being outnumbered, I seen many switch over to blue side in a pvp zone merely because there were more blue side pvp players there which in turn decreased the number even further to the point that if someone wanted to win there was no point in playing villain side at that moment because the odds are 4-9 per 1 villain.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

Dudesoft wrote:
Something that WoW does well for PVP is making it worth while. Gaining reputation by killing the enemy side is great. There's also a honour limit to the level you kill at. That would also help ganking a bit. Level 10 guy can't or shouldn't kill a level 1 guy for example or lose honour.
Another great thing is the capture the flag battles. Despite your level, you're useful in the pursuit of the flag.
Not that I'm endorsing copying Blizzard or anything.

I think that could work.
Honour system.
And no honor in gangbanging. 10 on one. One kill one point minus 1 point per person it took to fight them. While the loser gets no point for losing but get one point per person he had to fight in that pvp instance. But if he manage to beat off multiple player attackers that attack him/her then they get bonus points while the losers each lose extra honor points for ganging and still losing.
Yeah there will always be ganking just as there will always be murderers, but that doesn't mean you give away free guns and victims to them.

Define "taking to kill him"... Because I can see "non damage dealers" being penalised in this case. Whilst a player might be able to defeat some other players, the buff/debuff support characters would get 0screwed out from helping, because it just wont be worthwhile to jump in and help your friend who *might well* be losing (or struggling to win), so throwing your oar in to help will just make it "not worthwhile" to even throw down that debuff field.

ie: Controller and 2 support people (one buff one debuff) are wandering in a PvP zone. The debuff support gets caught out by a scrapper.

The controller and buff support jump in to help out. They might not even be dealing *damage directly* to the scrapper, but instead are buffing the debuff support character (shields/healing/whatever) and immobilizing/holding the scrapper, and then the scrapper drops, all through the fact that the 3 that individually would have had troubles taking down the scrapper, managed to overcome via team work. But in the end, they end up getting penalised for "ganging up on one character"

That is something that would actually *put me off* from even going into PvP zones, to help out friends. I tend to play the support/ranged characters, but being penalised for helping out friends.... screw that.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

jag40 wrote:
Dudesoft wrote:
Something that WoW does well for PVP is making it worth while. Gaining reputation by killing the enemy side is great. There's also a honour limit to the level you kill at. That would also help ganking a bit. Level 10 guy can't or shouldn't kill a level 1 guy for example or lose honour.
Another great thing is the capture the flag battles. Despite your level, you're useful in the pursuit of the flag.
Not that I'm endorsing copying Blizzard or anything.

I think that could work.
Honour system.
And no honor in gangbanging. 10 on one. One kill one point minus 1 point per person it took to fight them. While the loser gets no point for losing but get one point per person he had to fight in that pvp instance. But if he manage to beat off multiple player attackers that attack him/her then they get bonus points while the losers each lose extra honor points for ganging and still losing.
Yeah there will always be ganking just as there will always be murderers, but that doesn't mean you give away free guns and victims to them.

Define "taking to kill him"... Because I can see "non damage dealers" being penalised in this case. Whilst a player might be able to defeat some other players, the buff/debuff support characters would get 0screwed out from helping, because it just wont be worthwhile to jump in and help your friend who *might well* be losing (or struggling to win), so throwing your oar in to help will just make it "not worthwhile" to even throw down that debuff field.
ie: Controller and 2 support people (one buff one debuff) are wandering in a PvP zone. The debuff support gets caught out by a scrapper.
The controller and buff support jump in to help out. They might not even be dealing *damage directly* to the scrapper, but instead are buffing the debuff support character (shields/healing/whatever) and immobilizing/holding the scrapper, and then the scrapper drops, all through the fact that the 3 that individually would have had troubles taking down the scrapper, managed to overcome via team work. But in the end, they end up getting penalised for "ganging up on one character"
That is something that would actually *put me off* from even going into PvP zones, to help out friends. I tend to play the support/ranged characters, but being penalised for helping out friends.... screw that.

yeah, I was mostly talking about damage to damage. But now you mention it, yeah support too.

Because while it may seem like one may be penalized for helping their friend, have you considered that what put off people from PVP is getting ganged up on every fight? I don't see how being ganged up on is fun nor fair for the person being ganged up on and walks away with nothing for their troubles while dog piling is rewarded. And the person that been ganged up on, should not be penalized or walk away with nothing because 3 or 4 decided to gang up on him and take him down.

Plus I seen many support/control take out scrappers by themselves so being support doesn't mean one have to gang up and gank people to win. Like I said, I don't see how that is fair to the other person and that is more likely to drive a person from pvp than anything else as in the past it was one of the contributing factors in COX that caused PvP to basically go down the tube.

And the concept of fighting without getting dog pile is not too much a far fetched concept. In CO for example. When two in open world engage in PVP battle, their friends cant heal them, or jump in and save their bacon. It's that person and the other person or that team and the other team. No worries about being ganged up on and being ganked. I know some people like it because only way they win is when the odds are superbly in their favor with numbers and of course they don't want that advantage taken away. Yet, give not the slightest thought to how the person being ganked feels. They say, it's no fun when they cant help their friend, but give no thought about the fun ruining affect of being jumped. But we can speak about balance all day and fun, and such, but PvP will never be balanced when 8 on one is considered a "fair" fight.

To me that is not helping out a friend anymore than a group of gang members jumping on and stomping out one person in the street.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
For me, I only saw support

For me, I only saw support/control characters take out scrappers when they were *seriously* slotted for it. or if they had a "power set combination" advantage over the scrapper.

If it was balanced so that it was a 50/50 split if they would win/lose, then I can see the benefit for penalising "dog piling"... but that is going to take so much work, and you will still probably end up with FOTM which will give you a distinct advantage.

In Eve Online, i have both been the target of "dog piling" by a fleet of smaller ships, and lost, whilst also at another time, being part of a "crap fleet" (50+ cheap frigates), that went around for a laugh to take on the largest "valid" targets that we could find (factional warfare targets incase you are wondering, so the player already knew what they were getting into). We managed to kill FAR MORE ships than we lost...

Anyways, I can see that this is going to point of contention, and I honestly don't think that there will be a way to resolve this, especially if they are going for the flexibility and range of characters that CoX had. There will be classes that you will just not see in the PvP area because there would be *no point* in taking them unless you go and hunt for the "ones you can kill". And because of the penalty of helping them...whilst you might get the "easy kill"... you have just curp stomped someone who had no chance of winning. Sure you might bite off more than you can chew, but when you are getting womped on, wouldn't you like it if your friends could come and help AND NOT GET PENALISED?

Your mate getting womped into the floor? Why help him out? There is *no* point in helping defend your friend to win because you will get penalised for it. Now to me, that is NOT helping improve PvP... that is just forcing people to be lone wolves, and not help anyone at all.

You are just trying to prevent one form of "bad habit" and replacing it with another one (Selfishness and a distinct lack of team play)

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

HarvesterOfEyes
HarvesterOfEyes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 08:19
The only way to have

The only way to have "balanced" PvP is to make everyone identical. Any variation from that will be "imbalanced" in someone's eyes (usually about 80%).

Get yourself right; the world has enough problems.

Kaxiya
Kaxiya's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Developerkickstarter
Joined: 08/24/2013 - 21:44
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:

The only way to have "balanced" PvP is to make everyone identical. Any variation from that will be "imbalanced" in someone's eyes (usually about 80%).

"And when everyones Super, no one will be."---Syndrome of the Incredibles :P

A new beginning, forged from hope never ending!!

Beacon of Blazing Faith--The Titan Legacy

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

For me, I only saw support/control characters take out scrappers when they were *seriously* slotted for it. or if they had a "power set combination" advantage over the scrapper.
If it was balanced so that it was a 50/50 split if they would win/lose, then I can see the benefit for penalising "dog piling"... but that is going to take so much work, and you will still probably end up with FOTM which will give you a distinct advantage.
In Eve Online, i have both been the target of "dog piling" by a fleet of smaller ships, and lost, whilst also at another time, being part of a "crap fleet" (50+ cheap frigates), that went around for a laugh to take on the largest "valid" targets that we could find (factional warfare targets incase you are wondering, so the player already knew what they were getting into). We managed to kill FAR MORE ships than we lost...
Anyways, I can see that this is going to point of contention, and I honestly don't think that there will be a way to resolve this, especially if they are going for the flexibility and range of characters that CoX had. There will be classes that you will just not see in the PvP area because there would be *no point* in taking them unless you go and hunt for the "ones you can kill". And because of the penalty of helping them...whilst you might get the "easy kill"... you have just curp stomped someone who had no chance of winning. Sure you might bite off more than you can chew, but when you are getting womped on, wouldn't you like it if your friends could come and help AND NOT GET PENALISED?
Your mate getting womped into the floor? Why help him out? There is *no* point in helping defend your friend to win because you will get penalised for it. Now to me, that is NOT helping improve PvP... that is just forcing people to be lone wolves, and not help anyone at all.
You are just trying to prevent one form of "bad habit" and replacing it with another one (Selfishness and a distinct lack of team play)

hmmmm. I see. Except in COX PvP, rarely have I seen team go out and target the largest target available. They target the weakest one and dog pile on it. 8 man against one guy who probably maybe had a slim chance against one of them. And yeah some people do it for laughs, to make the other player a miserable as possible so they will basically leave the zone. To me that is not team playing that is the epitome of selfishness right there.

Yeah there will be an innate imbalance due to the variety of powers but I see no sense in adding further imbalance by encouraging or rewarding dog piling.

When fighting one on one or team vs team, yeah sometimes I/we lost. And it didn't bother me, because they earned my/our defeat. More respect. But when get dog piled on, what is the point of even fighting if there isn't a chance of survival?

And people can still form a team, so it's not forcing anyone to be lone wolves. If they form team they can find other teams to fight instead of dog piling. Dog piling contrary to popular COX PvP belief, is not the only tactic out there. All dog piling do is encourage griefing of people who don't stand a chance and when people feel they don't stand a chance they usually don't participate and when people don't participate that leaves less people to PVP, until it's just a forgotten part of the game that many people walk away with a bitter taste in their mouth.

If thye cant win a fair fight, I think it will encourage them to work on their skill and builds. Will there be powersets that are more easier to PVP? Of course just as there is powersets that are better at PVE.

As I said, I don't see how dog piling is in anyways good for PVP. All it do is destroy it. I haven't met one person that enjoy being dog piled on again and again and again because people are too afraid to even the odds especially when they know one side is less populated than the other side. If they did, they would have gladly went to the other side and fight but usually what they do? They stay on the dog piling side because they don't want to be on the receiving end but don't mind dishing it out to other. That is selfish and that do not encourage anything good. Teams that dog pile should not reap the rewards in a fighting a fight that have little risk. The person that should be rewarded should be the one that have been dog piled on if anyone should be rewarded in that situation. If they have two people and that one person needs one more, then by all means help them out, but helping someone out by dog piling on someone that doesn't stand a chance is not good and shouldn't be rewarded.

Or maybe it should be a challenge system like CO have. a person challenge another, they fight and no intereference at all. That way it nullifies the problem of griefing and dog piling. And they also have team pvp invite. teams can challenge teams that way those that need a team to fight can fight other teams without having the ability to jump on one poor soul and ruining their fun. That to me sounds like win win. People that team pvp can team pvp and those that don't enjoy being dog piled on every fight don't have to worry about that. Only people that will miss out is people that feel they must dog pile on one person to win. But are they not selfish for not considering they are ruinging the fun of the person they dog pile on?

So yes, I still stand by they should not get penalized for that tactic. It's unfair to the person that get dog piled on, it's unfair to people that fight their opponents in an honorable manner, and unfair to those that form a team and fight other teams. Only people that is being selfish in that situation is the dog pile people. Not the ones that wish for a fair fight, not the ones that are getting dog piled on, and not the ones that rather not partake in dog piling. The dog pilers are the selfish ones because while they easy wins without risk they don't give two thoughts about the fun or lack there of for their opponent that don't stand a chance against 5-8 people. And I think it's unfair to continue to cater to them while throwing everyone else fun out the window without consideration. That is the definition of pure selfishness.

And me personally I can no longer support a game, just as you cant support one that doesn't promote dog piling,, that promotes that type of behavior as I did in the past. Because giving them money is nearly as saying, sure, go ahead, dog pile on people ruing their fun. Their fun is not important anyways and then it never gets better and I help create and sustain that type of selfish mindset and play style and the downfall of that game pvp. So if they choose and the player speak in that is what they want, and go the selfish dog pile is only way to fight in pvp route, then more power to them and hope they succeed but I aint going to support that at all. I'm finish feeding that beast. Looks like one of us wont be in TPP when it's complete. It's unfortunate, I think there is a middle ground maybe somewhere where griefing and that type of selfishness is not encouraged and I just don't know of that middle ground yet but I know that dog piling should NOT be rewarded and should be discouraged because it's the most damaging thing to PvP while benefiting those that don't have the sand to fight on their own or fight team vs team. They only get off and their jollies of picking on fights that they have no chance of losing while stomping one guy over and over and get rewarded for it. And like I asked before, how is that fair to the person being dog piled on? Have you even considered that person? Why should they be penalized with no points because they keep getting dog piled on but the dog pilers should get the points? I seen more people leave PvP due to the dog piling problem than merely losing because thye lost in a somewhat fair fight.

syntaxerror37
syntaxerror37's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/24/2013 - 11:01
Maybe I am not qualified to

Maybe I am not qualified to respond in this thread, but here I go.

I've never really understood the point of PvP in a MMO. To me MMOs are about getting together, either with friends or strangers, and fighting your way through whatever for XP, Money, and Glory. That being said, there is one PvP experience I have enjoyed, and that's the World vs. World combat from Guild Wars 2. Hell, I'm on one of the lower ranked servers getting our butts kicked regularly and I still like it. That is what PvP should be in an MMO, more than just simply a team, a whole faction, battling another faction, for rewards that benefit the entire faction, even those not participating in it.

-----------------------------------------
I never set anything on fire accidentally!

The Titan Legacy - Defender of the Inner Flame

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Ok, I think I can see where

Ok, I think I can see where the differences are coming from. I was coming from and working with "open PvP zones" as the area discussion, because that is where the most common complaint of "dog piling" kick in.

In duels, you cannot dog pile. In "team based" arena styled PvP, the dog piling is *limited* and everyone is working as a team.. or at least they should be.

But demanding honor in an "open PvP zone", especially when objectives are involved.. it will be a *very* hard uphill struggle to change the common mindset. Because sometimes, the only way in which you can defend yourself, is by dogpiling your way through the enemy players (stand your ground, everyone focus on one, take them out, work onto the next target... dont chase). Sometimes its the only way to snap victory from the jaws of defeat.

Of course, you could always limit it so that PvP rewards in those zones are *only* ever given to those where no buffs/debuffs from other players are applied to either party (once again, all depends as to how the buff/debuff system works, and how long they last for...), so single player kills are the only way to get stuff.

It is however something that would need to be looked at, and I believe that warzones/structured PvP arena's would be the "better way" to go, rather than the open PvP zones that CIty of Heroes had.

I have to admit, I tend to avoid the PvP servers in MMORPG's because I tend to enjoy as to *when* I PvP... however, that doesn't stop me from partaking of it in Eve Online... I was more often than not a target of (attempted) piracy in Eve Online, but at least I knew the risks before hand. I just needed to be aware that even in high sec, I was *not* 100% safe, at most, i was just "mostly safe".. infact, I died most often in 0.0 space, in systems that my alliance owned.

And I think that is something that needs to be made clear... that in an open PvP area, there is always going to be the risk of being outnumbered and outgunned. I have no problem with open PvP area's having people *forced* into teams either... or even have it so that the PvP is on a timer in the zone (ie objectives are only available for 30 minutes every 2 hours or something like that... which could be a way to do it on a PvE server, limit the PvP in an "open PvP zone" to certain times, so that if there is something there for PvE players to get, like an exploration badge, they are able to dive in *at the right time* to get it)

syntaxerror37 wrote:

Maybe I am not qualified to respond in this thread, but here I go.
I've never really understood the point of PvP in a MMO. To me MMOs are about getting together, either with friends or strangers, and fighting your way through whatever for XP, Money, and Glory. That being said, there is one PvP experience I have enjoyed, and that's the World vs. World combat from Guild Wars 2. Hell, I'm on one of the lower ranked servers getting our butts kicked regularly and I still like it. That is what PvP should be in an MMO, more than just simply a team, a whole faction, battling another faction, for rewards that benefit the entire faction, even those not participating in it.

I find this comment interesting, because Guild Wars 2 World V World can be a VERY dog piling experience, especially if you go into the map at the wrong time, and end up by your lonesome (it has happened to me).

But I do also like the fact that your server can get XP/craft/gather/other bonus for doing stuff in the World Vs World.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

Ok, I think I can see where the differences are coming from. I was coming from and working with "open PvP zones" as the area discussion, because that is where the most common complaint of "dog piling" kick in.
In duels, you cannot dog pile. In "team based" arena styled PvP, the dog piling is *limited* and everyone is working as a team.. or at least they should be.
But demanding honor in an "open PvP zone", especially when objectives are involved.. it will be a *very* hard uphill struggle to change the common mindset. Because sometimes, the only way in which you can defend yourself, is by dogpiling your way through the enemy players (stand your ground, everyone focus on one, take them out, work onto the next target... dont chase). Sometimes its the only way to snap victory from the jaws of defeat.
Of course, you could always limit it so that PvP rewards in those zones are *only* ever given to those where no buffs/debuffs from other players are applied to either party (once again, all depends as to how the buff/debuff system works, and how long they last for...), so single player kills are the only way to get stuff.
It is however something that would need to be looked at, and I believe that warzones/structured PvP arena's would be the "better way" to go, rather than the open PvP zones that CIty of Heroes had.
I have to admit, I tend to avoid the PvP servers in MMORPG's because I tend to enjoy as to *when* I PvP... however, that doesn't stop me from partaking of it in Eve Online... I was more often than not a target of (attempted) piracy in Eve Online, but at least I knew the risks before hand. I just needed to be aware that even in high sec, I was *not* 100% safe, at most, i was just "mostly safe".. infact, I died most often in 0.0 space, in systems that my alliance owned.
And I think that is something that needs to be made clear... that in an open PvP area, there is always going to be the risk of being outnumbered and outgunned. I have no problem with open PvP area's having people *forced* into teams either... or even have it so that the PvP is on a timer in the zone (ie objectives are only available for 30 minutes every 2 hours or something like that... which could be a way to do it on a PvE server, limit the PvP in an "open PvP zone" to certain times, so that if there is something there for PvE players to get, like an exploration badge, they are able to dive in *at the right time* to get it)
syntaxerror37 wrote:
Maybe I am not qualified to respond in this thread, but here I go.
I've never really understood the point of PvP in a MMO. To me MMOs are about getting together, either with friends or strangers, and fighting your way through whatever for XP, Money, and Glory. That being said, there is one PvP experience I have enjoyed, and that's the World vs. World combat from Guild Wars 2. Hell, I'm on one of the lower ranked servers getting our butts kicked regularly and I still like it. That is what PvP should be in an MMO, more than just simply a team, a whole faction, battling another faction, for rewards that benefit the entire faction, even those not participating in it.

I find this comment interesting, because Guild Wars 2 World V World can be a VERY dog piling experience, especially if you go into the map at the wrong time, and end up by your lonesome (it has happened to me).
But I do also like the fact that your server can get XP/craft/gather/other bonus for doing stuff in the World Vs World.

Yeah never said it would be easy to change the mindset. Just like with every nerf or change, good or bad there is a group howling it's the end of the world.

Neither is building a game is easy especially independent company but yet it's being done and been done and in the beginning many failed to paved the way so that those today can more easily do it. If they stopped at, well it would be hard to change the mindest just because it became normality, then this entire project wouldn't exist and every game would be controlled by corporate companies.

It has to start somewhere. Although the forced teaming thing in a pvp zone is interesting. You enter a zone and placed on a team with the others on that side and it would behoove them to work together if they want ot survive the other side.

Or they could like some games do it. When people enter the zone they automatically place people on even teams if they didn't enter with a team already formed. I think some console games do it this way. You enter, team blue get 8, team red get 8 and you go at it. That also decrease unfair dog piling. And I'm not talking about dog piling team vs team because that can be prevented/utilized by teamwork. I'm talking about like in open zone pvp COX style where you have 3 villains and 20 heroes killing those three villains over and over, which led to griefing, which led to base camping which led to words exchanged which led to people leaving pvp and never looking back.

And yeah, they don't have to be "honor" in open world but they shouldn't be rewarded for taking little risks for those rewards by dog piling. When team vs team, there is risk the more skilled team gets the prize. When 20 on one due, tell me what is the risk for that team and why should they be rewarded for that something there is no risk of losing.

I think the force team idea may help with that although, still don't address very lop sided situations where dog piling most happen and occur. I think the team assignment thing will work for that, except then concept wise it may break cont. having villains and heroes mixed in on one team vs another set of hero and villain mixed in. Which I think my original suggestion is better to solve that particular situation and if teams know they wont be reward for dog piling on a solo person that have no team available especially due to low numbers, then they will seek out other teams of that size.

Basically the rewards should be risk based. No risk no reward. If they risk it in the odds, then there should be reward for whoever wins.

And remember dog piling only became normality only because it was allowed to. At one pointin time pvp was strictly one on one or team vs team. It wasn't always there wasn't always rewarded and PVP in those time flourished. COmpared to know where it even affected the view of the average PvPer as gankers that never fight unless they have 5-10 of their buddies to jump one person. Know what we call those people in real life? Punks. That is not bravery and heroes especially, villains (iffy), should not get a single trinket of a point and in reality they probably lose a lot of cool points and faith of the people believing them a hero. They probably will be viewed asa cowardly thug that cant fight. And that type of behavior is rewarded in systems like COX. Kids played that game and people talk about how wholesome it was and such but what is wholesome about teaching them that in a fight never fight fair and always make sure you bring 7 buddies to stomp on one person?

But if dog piling is rewarded then why not reward the guy that actually had the sand to stand up to the odds, like a hero does? How is it fair the dog pilers get the rewards but the person being dog pile gets nothing? If anything they should get one point per person that jumped them. And if they manage to defeat any, they should get double per. And maybe an Against All Odds badge. And if the dog pilers want that type of reward then have to grow a pair and fight with their skill instead of sheer numbers with don't take much skill nor risk.. Like in COX, you take on +3/8 you get more.. Take on -3 and you get less. Due to risk. The same should apply to PVP.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
The only problem i see with

The only problem i see with the "forced teaming" in open PvP zones (although I do respect the idea) is that if there is a population imbalance of what City of Heroes had (or what WoW has on some servers), then those PvP zones might just never see action (or very small periods of it).

Quote:

Or they could like some games do it. When people enter the zone they automatically place people on even teams if they didn't enter with a team already formed. I think some console games do it this way. You enter, team blue get 8, team red get 8 and you go at it.

And depending on the game, if enough people on one side drop out, then the game ends and you lose... even if you were "winning". Which has happened to me, just because some people kept on dying (and they were not even being "dog piled"!) Other games will just let the imbalance continue until the game ends naturally, but new players joining in would end up going to the "undermanned" side.

But you have to remember that those games as well have objectives in the game, or specific game modes (like Capture the Flag, most kills in x time, King of the Hill), where there is a *definite* winner/loser to the game. Very rarely do they last for more than an hour (although I have to admit, I did pull a few hour long death match games in Goldeneye and Perfect Dark on the N64).

I

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

The only problem i see with the "forced teaming" in open PvP zones (although I do respect the idea) is that if there is a population imbalance of what City of Heroes had (or what WoW has on some servers), then those PvP zones might just never see action (or very small periods of it).
Quote:
Or they could like some games do it. When people enter the zone they automatically place people on even teams if they didn't enter with a team already formed. I think some console games do it this way. You enter, team blue get 8, team red get 8 and you go at it.
And depending on the game, if enough people on one side drop out, then the game ends and you lose... even if you were "winning". Which has happened to me, just because some people kept on dying (and they were not even being "dog piled"!) Other games will just let the imbalance continue until the game ends naturally, but new players joining in would end up going to the "undermanned" side.
But you have to remember that those games as well have objectives in the game, or specific game modes (like Capture the Flag, most kills in x time, King of the Hill), where there is a *definite* winner/loser to the game. Very rarely do they last for more than an hour (although I have to admit, I did pull a few hour long death match games in Goldeneye and Perfect Dark on the N64).
I

Yeah the imbalance of population could be issue. Hell, PvP was all but dead by 2010. and on majority of the servers good luck running into anyone inside the zones.

Ah yes I remember Golden Eye, good stuff. Some of the best death matches I had in a game occurred there. Back when PvP was PvP and not dog pile or be dog piled.

Or how about if a new player enter the zone, they go to the undermanned side. Like if it's already 5 against one ratio then they get assigned to the other side although still until more people join, they still have to deal with the issue especially if PvP end up like post i13 where people may trickle in with majority being badge hunters that have no wish to pvp. And not to mention come to think about it not sure it would work because of the two factions. unless in open world PvP faction becomes irrelevant.

Given that COV came later than COH it was already at a numbers disadvantage especially with PvP zones that wasn't there in the beginning. From the looks of it, there will be PvP and villains there at the same time so no telling how vibrant or empty the pvp zone will be especially since from the looks of it they are not planning on putting any PVE stuff mixed with PVP meaning badgers will no longer be easy pickings and those that only play to pick off badgers probably will find it unfulfilling.

But I think this is the chance for pvp to start on the right foot this time instead of all of that work going unused with most people walking away upset at the mechanics that allowed questionable tactics. Then the social problems on top of that with being just cant resisting being a butt win/lose and mods not enforcing the rules. COX could have had a lot more players and missed the boat and under estimated the effect of that type of pvp. Although I13 tried to clean it up, but most of the people that it affected in a good way already mostly been ran off by the pvP "leet" and then it pissed them off then there was basically no one, although the badgers had a glad sigh of relief as they didn't have to worry about being dog piled, tea bagged and insulted while they tried to complete their collection.

And I like PvP. But it's no fun when everyone get tired of being dog piled and leave, leaving a few dog piling groups with nothing to do but dog pile on the random badger that happen to pass through.

on side note, I don't care what the rules are. If the rules say that all rules are off in pvp zone and people can talk and treat others any kind of way and curse at them and insult, then that is fine. But if it says that is not allowed, then it should be enforced, friends or not.

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 52 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
There is certainly going to

There is certainly going to be a difference between open world PvP and instanced matches (arenas, duels, etc.).*

I certainly understand jag40's frustration with being dogpiled in open world PvP, but that remains partly a social problem and partly a factor that people will do what's necessary to win. If a group catches someone alone, it's almost a certainty that all of them will attack the lone target. If the one team is outmatched, the quickest and easiest way to attempt to bring parity to the situation is to pile on one opponent. Another aspect is that it is, at least in concept, a team sport. You'll never see only one defender try to stop an attacker if two or three are available, just as any good attacker will pass the ball when he has to. (I think we could generally throw it under the group psychology bus ("team spirit", if you will) and call it a day.)

The "never go it alone" mentality is drilled into us, even as spectators, in any team sport. If the other team's players aren't as good, or they don't have as many players (e.g. injury, penalty, red card) it's not as though you'd accuse the other team of cheating. These are some fairly fundamentally ingrained perceptions that I don't think any MMO is going to overcome.

The situation isn't really any different in PvE. People will figure out the best and most efficient mechanism for doing something (Fire/Kin controllers from CoH, anyone?). If someone discovers that mobs can't or won't attack the healer if they stand on that rock or barrel, then most healers will go stand on that rock or barrel during that fight. Questions about whether it's 'fair' or 'honorable' won't enter the equation for the vast majority of players. So long as it isn't an exploit it's not cheating, and therefore it's a valid tactic.

I believe Gangrel also addressed this point, but I'll reiterate that limiting how many people can participate in a match, in order to create numerically even teams, is possible (perhaps even preferable) for instanced battlegrounds. It's not a solution that can work for open world PvP, for obvious reasons.

In summary, yes, whether or not any given open world PvP experience will be good or bad is going to be entirely a factor of chance and luck. There will be the good runs and there will be the bad runs. The reality is no different from 'group finder' experiences. Short-short version: asshats are a universal constant.

<3 the discussion.

* Rated PvP might be yet another bailiwick, depending on the approach that's taken.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

HarvesterOfEyes
HarvesterOfEyes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 08:19
The reality of open-zone and

The reality of open-zone and open-world PvP is that it permits and strongly favors tactics of catching people at a disadvantage. Hence zergs and gank-squads are the rule rather than the exception.

Get yourself right; the world has enough problems.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Never will a basketball game

Never will a basketball game be 5 on one, or football game be 11 full team vs 2 guys, and etc. And again I'm talking about dog piling in the sense, that they don't have players vs many. not dog piling team vs team where there is a chance for defense and chance to be defeated. And of course dog piling will happen, but it shouldn't be rewarded just in sports, you cant bring ya entire bench onto the court because Jordan is smashing you. Or never is a boxing/mma match going to go from one on one to one on 8 because the friends of the other guy feel like helping out. Know what would happen? In football, more than 11 guys on the field, flag. I think it's a penalty if they do it in basketball, and automatically disqualify in boxing and MMA. The issue can be solved if it's going to be compared to sports. I don't think the sports one is very good analogy because each sport have set rules, enforced, and governing body. PvP? Good luck getting a moderator in there.

As I said, dog piling will happen, I'm saying main point, is that it shouldn't be rewarded. At least if one kill is worth 1 rep, then it should be splited between the players and not each get one rep and the person that is basically handicapped, should get bonus for fighting the odds. Of course more than likely not many just purposely go into the odds alone, but if the sides are numbered like COX villain barely any relatively to Hero side, then there isn't anything much for villain side do but not participate at all. Then which would defeat the entire purpose of having pvp in the first place. All I'm saying it should not be rewarded dog piling on easy fights. If they have 8 and you have 8 and you dog pile each person fine and dandy but if it's 10-12 in a zone and only 2 people, the reward should not be the same.

and still, while we talking about he play of dog pilers and such and how they will get kills otherwise. Not a single person still addressed how it's fair to the person or have anyone still even bothered to think about the person that is constantly getting dog piled one and basically becoming farm fodder?

Maybe arena will suffice but hope it's to the same technical quality, aka not buggy as the open world version.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Quote:
Quote:

Not a single person still addressed how it's fair to the person or have anyone still even bothered to think about the person that is constantly getting dog piled one and basically becoming farm fodder?

Because it is a loosing argument. Is it fair for a "underpowered" player to always be hit upon by a tanker/scrapper even though they know that they *cannot* win? This is even without "dogpiling".

My controller was "farm fodder" in CoX at the low levels, and at the higher levels, it was far harder to catch up to the "better" players.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 52 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

As I said, dog piling will happen, I'm saying main point, is that it shouldn't be rewarded. At least if one kill is worth 1 rep, then it should be splited between the players and not each get one rep and the person that is basically handicapped, should get bonus for fighting the odds.

That much should certainly be in the cards. Give each kill a static value and that ought to be sorted out.

It's been too long for me to recall how WAR or WoW handled PvP currency/reputation (in CoH I only ever went into the PvP zones for the badges), so I may be overlooking any complexity that exists in such systems.

Darth Fez wrote:

* Rated PvP might be yet another bailiwick, depending on the approach that's taken.

I shouldn't forget to mention the SG vs SG base assault/defense option.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
People can gain skill.

People can gain skill.

One on one a controller have a chance against a tank or scrapper and even have powers that a scrapper dont have they could use to even the odds.

Still does not address how is it in anyway fair for dog piling?

I seen many controllers many not even pvp spec take out scraps, seen some pvp tanks take out everything only to get killed by a non-pvp speced defender.

But regardless tank or controller, in those situation it's a chance to go either way unlike the dog piling incident with low risk of the dog piling side which is ther major difference between a controller fighting a tank or scrapper.

It's a simple question and I'm starting to suspect that the reason it's being avoided because you know good and well it's bogus and cant even come up with a single reason or twist it into a way that make it even seem remotely fair for that to be rewarded. So you throw out these red herrings and dance and dodge around it. I bet if I asked would it be fair if anyone that dog pile is considered a griefer and should be banned for the game forever with no refund, you'd have a quick resounding "no, that aint fair" answer.

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 52 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

Still does not address how is it in anyway fair for dog piling?

Actually, this point has been addressed and answered.

Is it fair to have a whole group of people jump on one person? That's subjective.
Is it good 'sportsmanship' for a whole group of people to jump on one person? That's subjective.

Sure, most people would likely agree with you that it is neither fair nor sporting, especially if they're on the receiving end.

In my previous post I agreed with you and suggested a simple system (whatever faults or problems it may have) that prevents groups of people for being rewarded for attacking a single person.

How does that add up to avoiding your question or throwing out red herrings?

The truth is that, in open world PvP, you cannot prevent situations in which one side will be outnumbered or where one person will find themselves the target of multiple assailants. If you believe this is not true then, by all means, explain how you would prevent such situations from arising.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

HarvesterOfEyes
HarvesterOfEyes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 08:19
"Fair" can be tricky to

"Fair" can be tricky to define, but you're not going to find much of it in an open-world PvP model.

If you're looking for one or another version of "fair" you need to start with an "arena" or "battleground" model.

Get yourself right; the world has enough problems.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:

"Fair" can be tricky to define, but you're not going to find much of it in an open-world PvP model.
If you're looking for one or another version of "fair" you need to start with an "arena" or "battleground" model.

I had a nice long reply written up, which probably went way off the beaten path in a few exampled. This did it far quicker.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Darth Fez
Darth Fez wrote:

The truth is that, in open world PvP, you cannot prevent situations in which one side will be outnumbered or where one person will find themselves the target of multiple assailants. If you believe this is not true then, by all means, explain how you would prevent such situations from arising.

Yeah you finally addressed the question now but you said none of that stuff in that post previously and up to now yeah the question have been avoided it and throwing out red herrings throwing out "well the situation cant be prevented" "Sports teams" "well controllers may need that tactic", and etc. Instead of simple clear precise answer of the simple clear question of, Is it fair, to the person being dog piled on and I already have explained how to prevent such a situation. Of course it would be fair to someone not on the recieving end in most cases.

And what isnt subjective? Even what constitute a villain vs a hero is subjective, yet the factions are still being made and labeled hero and villain. It's even subjective if PvP even belongs in an MMO game at all. Yet some say it should some say it dont with each having reasons why it should or should not be included or excluded. Even the point of whether or not should a person be allowed to mod their characters to be invincible is subjective and some people think it's perfectly fair to do. Is it fair to the person that dont have that capability to mod and or manipulate code to do so? Is it fair that is usually a banned tactic? If dog piling is allowed, and it's agreed by you that it isnt fair, then why shoudl that unfair act be allowed but not other unfair acts that could also be used? Everything and anything can be subjective unless absolutely proven by hard facts that it being subjective is near if not totally irrelevant in this case

Although I think also the team assignment thing would work also. Like one person enter a zone, they get assigned ot a team then the other person on the other. Sure there me times when one team may out number the other, with that system mentioned now above, but it will prevent situations of 8 or more to few. AKA, vastly outnumbered and vastly easy pickings. With that system mentioned above, there wouldnt be a time much when anyside have an advantage more than one. And if it gets down to one team have an extra two man advantage then one member go to the other team to even it out.

And most of this can also be alleviated if there is an equal quality and not buggy arena type that is just as easy to acces as the open pvp and have the same expanse. A pvp where anything goes and pvp that is more structured and griefing tactics are not welcomed. Give thep layers that dotn enjoy being on the end of dog piling and look for enjoyable pvp a chance ot partake in pvp just as much as attention has been made to give those that cant win a fight unless they dog pile have a place to pvp. That way both sides are happy and they can dog pile all day and night while those that enjoy actual pvp in the more traditional sense can enjoy it too. Still I stand by that dog piling should not be rewarded on the same level as pvpers taht actually have to or work for their kills.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

Although I think also the team assignment thing would work also. Like one person enter a zone, they get assigned ot a team then the other person on the other. Sure there me times when one team may out number the other, with that system mentioned now above, but it will prevent situations of 8 or more to few. AKA, vastly outnumbered and vastly easy pickings. With that system mentioned above, there wouldnt be a time much when anyside have an advantage more than one. And if it gets down to one team have an extra two man advantage then one member go to the other team to even it out.

So now you have changed the open PvP from actually being "open PvP" to being "team based rules" PvP. Just like what we had with the Arena in CoX.

Randomly swapping people from one side to another, is *not* a good idea in my mind. Of course, it all depends as to how the general "sideness" of the game is set up.. if there is a definite marking of "hero" and "villain", then you could well see hero's being *forced* to team with villains through no choice of their own.

Quote:

And most of this can also be alleviated if there is an equal quality and not buggy arena type that is just as easy to acces as the open pvp and have the same expanse. A pvp where anything goes and pvp that is more structured and griefing tactics are not welcomed. Give thep layers that dotn enjoy being on the end of dog piling and look for enjoyable pvp a chance ot partake in pvp just as much as attention has been made to give those that cant win a fight unless they dog pile have a place to pvp. That way both sides are happy and they can dog pile all day and night while those that enjoy actual pvp in the more traditional sense can enjoy it too. Still I stand by that dog piling should not be rewarded on the same level as pvpers taht actually have to or work for their kills.

I would like to assume (as i stated earlier on) that we were talking about "open world PvP" and the problems that it has with the dogpiling.

I would also like to imagine that there would be *some form* of structured PvP (which is what you are describing with the Arena), as well, especially if they *are* planning to have PvP in the game... so you could well have teams of heroes against heroes, and villains against villains (danger room training facility maybe) as well as Capture the flag/objective based PvP battlegrounds (like WoW has), where you have to queue up to join.... (and the only time you can join part way through is if there is a spot available for you to join in).

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 52 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

Darth Fez wrote:
The truth is that, in open world PvP, you cannot prevent situations in which one side will be outnumbered or where one person will find themselves the target of multiple assailants. If you believe this is not true then, by all means, explain how you would prevent such situations from arising.

Yeah you finally addressed the question now but you said none of that stuff in that post previously and up to now ...

Well, actually...

Darth Fez wrote:

There is certainly going to be a difference between open world PvP and instanced matches (arenas, duels, etc.).*
I certainly understand jag40's frustration with being dogpiled in open world PvP, but that remains partly a social problem and partly a factor that people will do what's necessary to win. If a group catches someone alone, it's almost a certainty that all of them will attack the lone target. If the one team is outmatched, the quickest and easiest way to attempt to bring parity to the situation is to pile on one opponent.

...

In summary, yes, whether or not any given open world PvP experience will be good or bad is going to be entirely a factor of chance and luck. There will be the good runs and there will be the bad runs. The reality is no different from 'group finder' experiences. Short-short version: asshats are a universal constant.

Yeah, I had addressed the open world PvP situation.

Since the majority of this post consists of quoting myself I believe it's safe to say that I've exhausted my useful and constructive commentary on this particular subject.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

DeathSheepFromHell
DeathSheepFromHell's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2013 - 15:08
The only way to have good PvP

The only way to have good PvP is the same as the only way to have good PvE:

For people to have fun doing it.

One of the best PvP things I ever did was play Arena matches in the low leagues on Champions. Because in the low leagues, you generally don't find many PvP-focal folks (they advance much more quickly, as a rule), and so it is perfectly fine to be a PvE person whose approach to PvP is "run into the middle of a grand melee, cackling madly, nail a person or two, get dogpiled, then respawn and do it all again, in a matter of 30-60 seconds".

Worked great for me, and I can completely see why a lot of folks would hate it.

The real trick, the real *problem*, is in managing to find a way to "sort" people so that they end up with those who are of a similar mindset when they PvP. And arranging for PvP and PvE to not interfere with each other except for the people who actively desire that the two *not* be separate things — which is by no stretch of the imagination "every PvPer". All I can say as a staffer is that the question is still being hammered on, and that the staff are well aware that there are a wide variety of desires. About the only one that I, at least, have no interest in trying to please is the bully who wants to be able to have "the thrill of the hunt" taking down PvE folks in a forced PvP instance that they need to go to for some other reason — one of the least pleasant experiences I ever had on CoX.


Developer Emeritus
and multipurpose sheep

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Agreed. There should be *no*

Agreed. There should be *no* reason for the PvP averse player to go into a PvP area, to achieve a mission goal.

Hell, I play on the PvE servers, and with the exception of the PvP quests, I managed to go through/around and do pretty much every other single quest in the game (well, I am sure I missed a few, but you get the idea).

The only time I got involved with the "PvP" side of stuff, was when I decided to take one of the structures in Outland for the Alliance. It was an optional goal, not part of a story line quest... but i decided to do it, and I got flagged for PvP.

I was *aware* of the risks before hand, and I was *not* penalised for not doing it.

Of course, without knowing the developers mindset or decision regarding server formats, ie if PvP/PvE/RP PvP/RP PvE dedicated (or at least with the exception of the PvP servers, suggested "rulesets"), or if they would go Single Server set up (Champions Online / Eve Online), this decision could quite heavily affect their PvP setup plans...

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Darth Fez wrote:
Darth Fez wrote:

jag40 wrote:
Darth Fez wrote:
The truth is that, in open world PvP, you cannot prevent situations in which one side will be outnumbered or where one person will find themselves the target of multiple assailants. If you believe this is not true then, by all means, explain how you would prevent such situations from arising.

Yeah you finally addressed the question now but you said none of that stuff in that post previously and up to now ...
Well, actually...
Darth Fez wrote:
There is certainly going to be a difference between open world PvP and instanced matches (arenas, duels, etc.).*
I certainly understand jag40's frustration with being dogpiled in open world PvP, but that remains partly a social problem and partly a factor that people will do what's necessary to win. If a group catches someone alone, it's almost a certainty that all of them will attack the lone target. If the one team is outmatched, the quickest and easiest way to attempt to bring parity to the situation is to pile on one opponent.
...

In summary, yes, whether or not any given open world PvP experience will be good or bad is going to be entirely a factor of chance and luck. There will be the good runs and there will be the bad runs. The reality is no different from 'group finder' experiences. Short-short version: asshats are a universal constant.

Yeah, I had addressed the open world PvP situation.
Since the majority of this post consists of quoting myself I believe it's safe to say that I've exhausted my useful and constructive commentary on this particular subject.

I never said you didn't address the open world pvp situation. I said you didn't address the fact of whether or not dog piling is fair.

which even in your quoted post, yes it address the open world pvp but not a mention of whether dog piling is fair to the person being dog piled on.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Gangrel wrote:

Nah it's still open pvp as people can come and go.

And if heroes have no qualms about dog piling and using other tactics that may not be heroic then it should be no problem to team with a villain. By dog piling they already threw the heroic immersion out the window anyways.
So yeah, some mechanism to keep the fight somewhat even is the idea.

Or as I said first, if they want to team up then they should find other teams to fight and not get points for dog piling on vastly uneven odds. Because as you seem to forget that person that is being dog piled on is also a player that probably don't like getting dog piled everytime they respawn. That kind of kills the enjoyment of PVP. Or is their enjoyment and feelings less important and worthless next to the dog pilers who get their jollies of basically farming one person with a bunch of their buddies over and over? As some would say, "oh they should just leave" and guess what most of them do. And then PvP zones becomes dead space, waste of resources, just like what happened in COX. If that is the plan, might as well save the trouble and not bother with it and let potential customers know, that PVP is only for dog pilers and if they don't like getting dog piled, then their money, enjoyment, opinion means nothing as it's catered only to dog piler pvp people.

And yeah, as stated a couple of posts above, maybe it's simply best to have open world pvp for those that like to dog pile and open world pvp where it's not allowed and or not rewarded. That way the dog piler can continue to dog pile until they run every single person out and no one left to fight, and those that enjoy actual pvp can actually enjoy pvp.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

Nah it's still open pvp as people can come and go.
And if heroes have no qualms about dog piling and using other tactics that may not be heroic then it should be no problem to team with a villain. By dog piling they already threw the heroic immersion out the window anyways.
So yeah, some mechanism to keep the fight somewhat even is the idea.

Hate to say this, but that is a *bullshit* reason for forcing people to swap sides in an "open PvP zone". I might well be in a team that is actually following your rules, and not dogpiling solo players in the zone. But because there is an imbalance 1 or more people on my side will have to swap over to the "enemy" side?

That is bullshit. And you know it.

And it also makes no sense explaining as to why Villains would be swapping over to the heroic side.. surely if they are villains they would "love the dogpiling" as you seem to infer

Quote:

Or as I said first, if they want to team up then they should find other teams to fight and not get points for dog piling on vastly uneven odds. Because as you seem to forget that person that is being dog piled on is also a player that probably don't like getting dog piled everytime they respawn. That kind of kills the enjoyment of PVP. Or is their enjoyment and feelings less important and worthless next to the dog pilers who get their jollies of basically farming one person with a bunch of their buddies over and over? As some would say, "oh they should just leave" and guess what most of them do. And then PvP zones becomes dead space, waste of resources, just like what happened in COX. If that is the plan, might as well save the trouble and not bother with it and let potential customers know, that PVP is only for dog pilers and if they don't like getting dog piled, then their money, enjoyment, opinion means nothing as it's catered only to dog piler pvp people.
And yeah, as stated a couple of posts above, maybe it's simply best to have open world pvp for those that like to dog pile and open world pvp where it's not allowed and or not rewarded. That way the dog piler can continue to dog pile until they run every single person out and no one left to fight, and those that enjoy actual pvp can actually enjoy pvp.

Believe it or not, but some of the most populated WoW servers are "PvP" servers. Sure, you cannot go round and kill your own side willy nilly... but you sure as hell can kill the other faction without having to be in a PvP zone.

*edit* I would like to *emphasis* that I have no problem with "arena"/"battleground"/"duelling" systems of PvP being implemented in the game.

IF an "open PvP" zone though is implemented, then I feel that people should NOT be forced to fight their own faction just because there is a population imbalance.

Well, not unless there is at least a DAMN good *ingame* reason for doing so... to explain why they would be fighting side by side.. and yet also against each other....

And more than likely, you will find that any forced mechanism like this means that the area would work better as an instanced battlezone....

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

HarvesterOfEyes
HarvesterOfEyes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 08:19
Quote:
Quote:

As some would say, "oh they should just leave" and guess what most of them do. And then PvP zones becomes dead space, waste of resources, just like what happened in COX. If that is the plan, might as well save the trouble and not bother with it and let potential customers know, that PVP is only for dog pilers and if they don't like getting dog piled, then their money, enjoyment, opinion means nothing as it's catered only to dog piler pvp people.

The solution to "dog piling" is don't have open-PvP areas. "Dog piling" or as others call it "zerging" is a direct consequence of the open-PvP model.

Putting up an open PvP area is ipso facto an invitation to this behavior.

Get yourself right; the world has enough problems.

DeathSheepFromHell
DeathSheepFromHell's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2013 - 15:08
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

Agreed. There should be *no* reason for the PvP averse player to go into a PvP area, to achieve a mission goal.
Hell, I play on the PvE servers, and with the exception of the PvP quests, I managed to go through/around and do pretty much every other single quest in the game (well, I am sure I missed a few, but you get the idea).
The only time I got involved with the "PvP" side of stuff, was when I decided to take one of the structures in Outland for the Alliance. It was an optional goal, not part of a story line quest... but i decided to do it, and I got flagged for PvP.
I was *aware* of the risks before hand, and I was *not* penalised for not doing it.
Of course, without knowing the developers mindset or decision regarding server formats, ie if PvP/PvE/RP PvP/RP PvE dedicated (or at least with the exception of the PvP servers, suggested "rulesets"), or if they would go Single Server set up (Champions Online / Eve Online), this decision could quite heavily affect their PvP setup plans...

The reason you haven't seen a whole lot about this is that a lot of what we *can* do depends on managing to "prove out" whether certain approaches to handling the server are actually practical. Basically, we have a way that we *think* will work, and if it does, it should let folks take a variety of approaches (probably even shift their approach as they change moods, although this does raise the need to avoid letting folks "hit and run")… but it depends *so* heavily on some of the practicals that we really don't want to make a promise we can't deliver on.

Edit: Actually, I should be a bit more clear. Most of the current ideas being batted around take what one might call a "several of the above" (not necessarily *all* of the above, but several) approach, simply because as has been noted even folks who like to PvP may not like particular *types* of PvP.

The one absolutely solid commitment made so far is that we will not force anyone who *doesn't* want to PvP to do so, not even due to "accidentally tagging" something with a stray hit or the like. One way or another, PvP — or at least the potential for it — will be a very deliberate choice.

That does not, however, mean that heroes will be left unable to touch someone beating up on civilians, or other things that would break believability (such as villains being unable to beat up folks). The questions are entirely about how to implement things so that those who want to can, those who don't want to don't have to, and everyone can have fun no matter which approach they take.

Beyond that, I would expect that it is going to take us some time before we'll have concrete enough answers to say much about details.


Developer Emeritus
and multipurpose sheep

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

jag40 wrote:
Nah it's still open pvp as people can come and go.
And if heroes have no qualms about dog piling and using other tactics that may not be heroic then it should be no problem to team with a villain. By dog piling they already threw the heroic immersion out the window anyways.
So yeah, some mechanism to keep the fight somewhat even is the idea.

Hate to say this, but that is a *bullshit* reason for forcing people to swap sides in an "open PvP zone". I might well be in a team that is actually following your rules, and not dogpiling solo players in the zone. But because there is an imbalance 1 or more people on my side will have to swap over to the "enemy" side?
That is bullshit. And you know it.
And it also makes no sense explaining as to why Villains would be swapping over to the heroic side.. surely if they are villains they would "love the dogpiling" as you seem to infer
Quote:
Or as I said first, if they want to team up then they should find other teams to fight and not get points for dog piling on vastly uneven odds. Because as you seem to forget that person that is being dog piled on is also a player that probably don't like getting dog piled everytime they respawn. That kind of kills the enjoyment of PVP. Or is their enjoyment and feelings less important and worthless next to the dog pilers who get their jollies of basically farming one person with a bunch of their buddies over and over? As some would say, "oh they should just leave" and guess what most of them do. And then PvP zones becomes dead space, waste of resources, just like what happened in COX. If that is the plan, might as well save the trouble and not bother with it and let potential customers know, that PVP is only for dog pilers and if they don't like getting dog piled, then their money, enjoyment, opinion means nothing as it's catered only to dog piler pvp people.
And yeah, as stated a couple of posts above, maybe it's simply best to have open world pvp for those that like to dog pile and open world pvp where it's not allowed and or not rewarded. That way the dog piler can continue to dog pile until they run every single person out and no one left to fight, and those that enjoy actual pvp can actually enjoy pvp.

Believe it or not, but some of the most populated WoW servers are "PvP" servers. Sure, you cannot go round and kill your own side willy nilly... but you sure as hell can kill the other faction without having to be in a PvP zone.
*edit* I would like to *emphasis* that I have no problem with "arena"/"battleground"/"duelling" systems of PvP being implemented in the game.
IF an "open PvP" zone though is implemented, then I feel that people should NOT be forced to fight their own faction just because there is a population imbalance.
Well, not unless there is at least a DAMN good *ingame* reason for doing so... to explain why they would be fighting side by side.. and yet also against each other....
And more than likely, you will find that any forced mechanism like this means that the area would work better as an instanced battlezone....

Just as I think dog piling should be allowed is bullcrap and the reason that dog piling should be allowed is because it's open world pvp is bullcrap.

And I feel that people should NOT be forced to endure dog piling and watch the other team get awarded because of there is a population imbalance,

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:

Quote:
As some would say, "oh they should just leave" and guess what most of them do. And then PvP zones becomes dead space, waste of resources, just like what happened in COX. If that is the plan, might as well save the trouble and not bother with it and let potential customers know, that PVP is only for dog pilers and if they don't like getting dog piled, then their money, enjoyment, opinion means nothing as it's catered only to dog piler pvp people.
The solution to "dog piling" is don't have open-PvP areas. "Dog piling" or as others call it "zerging" is a direct consequence of the open-PvP model.
Putting up an open PvP area is ipso facto an invitation to this behavior.

Well I guess one solution is to not have open world pvp but there can be open world pvp without encouraging dog piling just like there is open pvp but hacks are not encouraged. And only reason Open pvp is "invitation" to that type of behavior is only because it was encouraged by game mechanics. As I stayed there are many ways to cut that out but yet, devs encourage it by rewarding it. No reward, it's not encouraged. They can dog pile all they want but wont get rewarded for it and thus most since there is no reward wont do it. That is how to have open world pvp and discourage dog piling. Open world pvp is not in itself an invitation for dog piling anymore than open world pvp is invitation to use racial slurs and insults. It happens because it is allowed rewarded and thus encouraged. I say stop encouraging it by stop rewarding it.

But I don't think the term zerging applies to what I'm talking about given that in COX every character was around the same level within the zone and not low levels all attacking a 50 and given that dog piling is usually done on players that is equal to or less than one person on that team.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
The problem that I think

The problem that I think arises for "open PvP" is that most of the complaints came from being "ganged" upon in the PvP zones by the opposing faction, and not by their *own* faction.

Just as a question though... how many times were you "dog piled" by heroes, and how many times were you dog piled by "villains"? And would you have been willing to fight alongside those of the opposing faction in an *open PvP zone*, just for a sense of balance, even if it made *no* storyline or setting sense?

Me? I was mainly dogpiled by villains... i rarely went into the open PvP zones anyways... not through fear of PvP happening, but because there was no real reason for me to go there apart from getting exploration badges.

But as i stated earlier on, I am *not* opposed to PvP happening in certain area's either. Hell, I played Eve Online for long enough. If I *hated* PvP, I would have never taken stayed for the amount time that I did with it (and yes, I started off hating PvP, but the *thrill* of risk is something altogether different ;) )

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

HarvesterOfEyes
HarvesterOfEyes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 08:19
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

Just as I think dog piling should be allowed is bullcrap and the reason that dog piling should be allowed is because it's open world pvp is bullcrap.
And I feel that people should NOT be forced to endure dog piling and watch the other team get awarded because of there is a population imbalance,

1. Implementing restrictions on team size, etc makes it not "open". If you don't like open-zone PvP don't participate in it.

2. Ambushes and other traps are a natural outcome of the "open" model. Most people who PvP play to win. They work very hard to find every advantage. In "open" PvP that means overpowering and surprise attacks. Those are naturally advantageous situations. If you don't like how those people play, avoid them. They can only dog-pile you if you permit them, and you permit by entering an open PvP realm.

3. "Zerging" is exactly the term used in other games (LoTRO and Rift for example) for many-on-few combat. It's nothing to do with level as I use it.

Get yourself right; the world has enough problems.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

The problem that I think arises for "open PvP" is that most of the complaints came from being "ganged" upon in the PvP zones by the opposing faction, and not by their *own* faction.
Just as a question though... how many times were you "dog piled" by heroes, and how many times were you dog piled by "villains"? And would you have been willing to fight alongside those of the opposing faction in an *open PvP zone*, just for a sense of balance, even if it made *no* storyline or setting sense?
)

Mainly seen the dog piling done by heroes.

But the question will I fight along side those for balance. The answer is yes and I have. Of course in COX that meant having to hop onto a villain or a hero. Yes I would be willing to switch sides for a sense of balance.
And will be willing to fight along side those of the opposite faction.

Didn't realize PVP had a storyline especially one that entailed get 8 guys onto one person. Would you watch a movie where 8 guys beat up one person over and over for 2.5 hours? I would find that movie pretty boring and probably be asking for my money back. Would you walk away saying, "Hey, those 8 guys really showed how powerful they were by beating up that one guy that didn't have a chance. They showed real bravery."

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:

jag40 wrote:
Just as I think dog piling should be allowed is bullcrap and the reason that dog piling should be allowed is because it's open world pvp is bullcrap.
And I feel that people should NOT be forced to endure dog piling and watch the other team get awarded because of there is a population imbalance,

1. Implementing restrictions on team size, etc makes it not "open". If you don't like open-zone PvP don't participate in it.
2. Ambushes and other traps are a natural outcome of the "open" model. Most people who PvP play to win. They work very hard to find every advantage. In "open" PvP that means overpowering and surprise attacks. Those are naturally advantageous situations. If you don't like how those people play, avoid them. They can only dog-pile you if you permit them, and you permit by entering an open PvP realm.
3. "Zerging" is exactly the term used in other games (LoTRO and Rift for example) for many-on-few combat. It's nothing to do with level as I use it.

And that type of thinking by those types of players is what killed PvP in COX. As I said, many people said that and most people left.

But still with that line of thinking it's basically insinuating that those that don't like being dog piled on or enjoy it, even thought they paid for the game and spent money should be denied the right to enjoy the game of PVP. What make the dog pilers so high and mighty that their fun is more priority than everyone else? Do they pay extra to dog pile? In most cases I can bet not Thus people that don't like dog piling shouldn't have to leave anywhere because it's as much of their game as it is the dog pilers. And the ones that tend to destroy games is the dog pilers. If it wasn't for them, COX probably would be alive today but they are too selfish to see that. Instead they rather run everyone off and guess what in the end, No one get to play COX anymore. Thanks a lot. A real service they provided.

I would hardly count dog piling as working hard. Any guy can grab 8 people and take down one player. That is far from hard work.

And no, the blaming the victim don't work in this case. You might as well say that well if a girl don't want to be raped she shouldn't walk among men and because she in the world she should expect to get raped huh. Apparently you are one of those people that believe that. Sad we still have people in this world with that mindset. Always the victim fault. Someone shoots someone else, well, they shouldn't been on the business end of the gun huh. Just as people have a right to be in the world without their rights being stepped on a paying customer should have the right to enjoy the game just as much as others without being told "oh they don't like they should leave". How about the dog pilers leave and stop ruining games without reimbursing the people that they ruined it for.

This is an easy problem to fix, but of course those that cant win otherwise will resist. it was expected. And they are so selfish that they rather run everyone away by telling them 'don't like it leave" and bring the entire game down instead of just sitting back and thinking for a single moment beyond themselves and say, "hey that is another person behind that screen."

So when I pay for a game, I have just as much right to play pvp like anyone else. You don't say I don't and should leave. I probably put more money into COX than you ever did. Who the hell you think you are, dude? How about if you are too yellow belly to fight go back to pve actually put in work in to make your build stronger, practice at the craft of PVP and come back and fight instead of hiding behind a 7 other buddies like a female dog. You think your enjoyment trumps mine in a game I paid for. You are wrong. Want to trump my right to enjoyment then get off your lazy bum and pay for my game THEN you have the right to tell me to leave. If you aint going to do that, STFU talking to me. This convo with you is done. If you end up in situation where you get injured or hurt, remember what you said, "don't want to get robbed, then you should of left this world then. I tried to be civil with you but if you want to get insulting by saying my money means nothing and you are better than me, and my opinion don't matter, because you only survive by dog piling, then so be it. I can play that game. And guess what, I can enter into ANY ZONE I PLEASE IF I PAY FOR THE GAME. If I see something I don't like I will speak it just like you can. If you don't like it that is fine, but when you cross the line, you cross the line.

How many more games will your ilk ruin due your selfishness? You ruin COX, and now aiming to ruin this one? What you go game to game like a cancer until there isn't a single Super hero MMO left and then cry about it closing.

If you aint going to pay for my game, Unless you coughing up cash in my stead then STFU talking to me until you can do so without being insulting and thinking you are better than everyone and think you can tell someone to leave a game they paid for. This convo is over with you. next question.

HarvesterOfEyes
HarvesterOfEyes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 08:19
I make no value judgements in

I make no value judgements in any of my posts on this topic. I am merely trying to describe what is.

I'm done trying to explain.

Get yourself right; the world has enough problems.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:

I make no value judgements in any of my posts on this topic. I am merely trying to describe what is.
I'm done trying to explain.

You stopped trying to describe what is when you suggested that paying customers are second class citizens and it's their fault for the behavior of others and have no right to enjoyment. Before you said that you should have been done "explaining or what ever you want to call it. At that point you crossed the line majorly.

HarvesterOfEyes
HarvesterOfEyes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 08:19
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
I make no value judgements in any of my posts on this topic. I am merely trying to describe what is.
I'm done trying to explain.

You stopped trying to describe what is when you suggested that paying customers are second class citizens and it's their fault for the behavior of others and have no right to enjoyment. Before you said that you should have been done "explaining or what ever you want to call it. At that point you crossed the line majorly.

Negative. Still not offering any value judgements.

Get yourself right; the world has enough problems.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

Gangrel wrote:
The problem that I think arises for "open PvP" is that most of the complaints came from being "ganged" upon in the PvP zones by the opposing faction, and not by their *own* faction.
Just as a question though... how many times were you "dog piled" by heroes, and how many times were you dog piled by "villains"? And would you have been willing to fight alongside those of the opposing faction in an *open PvP zone*, just for a sense of balance, even if it made *no* storyline or setting sense?
)

Mainly seen the dog piling done by heroes.
But the question will I fight along side those for balance. The answer is yes and I have. Of course in COX that meant having to hop onto a villain or a hero. Yes I would be willing to switch sides for a sense of balance.
And will be willing to fight along side those of the opposite faction.

If you didnt have a villain though, would you still be fine being *forced* to team with others of the opposing faction.

Quote:

Didn't realize PVP had a storyline especially one that entailed get 8 guys onto one person.

The player is *not* forced to be in that zone for 2.5 hours.. but there was at least some "plot" for the CoX zones...

Bloody bay was about the meteor and Shivans.
Warburg was fighting for control of the missiles
Recluses Victory was to gain control of the timeline.

Sure, these are not exactly award winning plot lines, but they at least give some background to the zone.

Quote:

Would you watch a movie where 8 guys beat up one person over and over for 2.5 hours? I would find that movie pretty boring and probably be asking for my money back. Would you walk away saying, "Hey, those 8 guys really showed how powerful they were by beating up that one guy that didn't have a chance. They showed real bravery."

if you are trying to do an analogy here, I will ask "why on earth was the guy in the PvP zone for 2.5 hours being cannon fodder?"

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Oh, and if this much

Oh, and if this much discussion is arising because of just 2 side faction open world PvP, imagine how much messier it *could* be if there was 3 (or 4, or even more) different sides...

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:

jag40 wrote:
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
I make no value judgements in any of my posts on this topic. I am merely trying to describe what is.
I'm done trying to explain.

You stopped trying to describe what is when you suggested that paying customers are second class citizens and it's their fault for the behavior of others and have no right to enjoyment. Before you said that you should have been done "explaining or what ever you want to call it. At that point you crossed the line majorly.

Negative. Still not offering any value judgements.

Good. Maybe it's best to just keep your judgements to yourself.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

jag40 wrote:
Gangrel wrote:
The problem that I think arises for "open PvP" is that most of the complaints came from being "ganged" upon in the PvP zones by the opposing faction, and not by their *own* faction.
Just as a question though... how many times were you "dog piled" by heroes, and how many times were you dog piled by "villains"? And would you have been willing to fight alongside those of the opposing faction in an *open PvP zone*, just for a sense of balance, even if it made *no* storyline or setting sense?
)

Mainly seen the dog piling done by heroes.
But the question will I fight along side those for balance. The answer is yes and I have. Of course in COX that meant having to hop onto a villain or a hero. Yes I would be willing to switch sides for a sense of balance.
And will be willing to fight along side those of the opposite faction.

If you didnt have a villain though, would you still be fine being *forced* to team with others of the opposing faction.
Quote:
Didn't realize PVP had a storyline especially one that entailed get 8 guys onto one person.
The player is *not* forced to be in that zone for 2.5 hours.. but there was at least some "plot" for the CoX zones...
Bloody bay was about the meteor and Shivans.
Warburg was fighting for control of the missiles
Recluses Victory was to gain control of the timeline.
Sure, these are not exactly award winning plot lines, but they at least give some background to the zone.
Quote:
Would you watch a movie where 8 guys beat up one person over and over for 2.5 hours? I would find that movie pretty boring and probably be asking for my money back. Would you walk away saying, "Hey, those 8 guys really showed how powerful they were by beating up that one guy that didn't have a chance. They showed real bravery."

if you are trying to do an analogy here, I will ask "why on earth was the guy in the PvP zone for 2.5 hours being cannon fodder?"

5 min or 2.5 hours it's besides the point. Would you think, watching a movie like that, that the heroes showed real bravery ganging up on someone like that?

Do you think when 8 gang members beat up on another, do you walk away saying, that guy with 8 of his buddies murking that one dude is a real tough guy?

I thought I said yeah. I wouldn't mind being switched over to even the odds. Even if I didn't have a villain. If it was allowed in COX that is what I would have done. "Yes I would be willing to switch sides for a sense of balance." Yeah though I said it. Well it happens that some stuff get missed, but again, yeah I would be fine with switching sides to even the odds and team with people of the opposing faction. To me PVP is not jus tabout getting my fun and mud stomping on everyone fun without consideration. To me that is what is detrimental to PvP. because as people leave, like THAT poster above suggested, that is less people to fight and more lop sidedness which in turn cause more people to leave and snowball the problem until there is nothing left to fight, like what exactly happened in COX PvP. And many people forget that most pvpers, such as those that get ran off, are also pve players, and when they get excluded from enjoyment, then they tend to leave the game totally, like what happened in COX. Me personally I rather not see that repeated again and pvp resources wasted with time and money that could have been used elsewhere.

And players are not *forced* to dog pile people and run people away from pvp.

They choose to pvp as it's supposed to be a part of the package of buying the game they can participate in. And they should have a right to choose to partake. Should they be excluded even though they paid the same amount as the people that choose to dog pile? If so, then their subscription rate should be decreased by at least $7 per $15 if they are not allowed to enjoy the entire game features.

And those plots to the pvp zone, yeah don't see anywhere where it said dog piling is a must or the goal.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
And people are *not* forced

And people are *not* forced to go into an open PvP zone either

Side note: Watching the WWE just now, I just saw 4 good guys beat up one "bad guy", and he wasn't even all that large (5'10, 180lbs)

((to be fair, it was setup to be bad for the "bad guys"... it was 3 of them vs 11 "good guys"))

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

And people are *not* forced to go into an open PvP zone either

true.

And people are *not* forced to dog pile in open pvp zone.

Just like people are not forced to call people the N word, call them the C words or B word or the WB words. Those that don't like being called those things, should they be forced to not participate in PVP because that type of behavior is going on?

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

And people are *not* forced to go into an open PvP zone either
Side note: Watching the WWE just now, I just saw 4 good guys beat up one "bad guy", and he wasn't even all that large (5'10, 180lbs)
((to be fair, it was setup to be bad for the "bad guys"... it was 3 of them vs 11 "good guys"))

Scripted wrestling. And even in that situation, the 3 guys get paid for that unlike in PVP where the 3 guy walks away with nothing.

And that can be easily countered by in MMA fight, how many do that happen and if it did, would the 11 guys against three be declared winner? Probably not, they probably would be disqualified, and probably lose their fighting license. Same with boxing and just about most other combat sports. And probably wont get paid and or actually have to pay money for those types of actions.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

Gangrel wrote:
And people are *not* forced to go into an open PvP zone either
Side note: Watching the WWE just now, I just saw 4 good guys beat up one "bad guy", and he wasn't even all that large (5'10, 180lbs)
((to be fair, it was setup to be bad for the "bad guys"... it was 3 of them vs 11 "good guys"))

Scripted wrestling. And even in that situation, the 3 guys get paid for that unlike in PVP where the 3 guy walks away with nothing.
And that can be easily countered by in MMA fight, how many do that happen and if it did, would the 11 guys against three be declared winner? Probably not, they probably would be disqualified, and probably lose their fighting license. Same with boxing and just about most other combat sports. And probably wont get paid and or actually have to pay money for those types of actions.

I have *never* seen an MMA fight involve more than 2 competitors...

But why penalise dogpiling, when you should also penalise *helping your team mates* via any means those in an open PvP zone...

Buffs, debuffs, healing...That all "contributes" towards dogpiling in my mind.

if you don't want that to happen in an open PvP zone... then you might as well just scrap the open PvP zone in the first place.

And in my mind, putting people into teams, potentially forcing people to swap sides in the zone (so you could potentially end up surrounded by your enemies with minimal warning), is *not* open PvP... that is *structured* PvP

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

jag40 wrote:
Gangrel wrote:
And people are *not* forced to go into an open PvP zone either
Side note: Watching the WWE just now, I just saw 4 good guys beat up one "bad guy", and he wasn't even all that large (5'10, 180lbs)
((to be fair, it was setup to be bad for the "bad guys"... it was 3 of them vs 11 "good guys"))

Scripted wrestling. And even in that situation, the 3 guys get paid for that unlike in PVP where the 3 guy walks away with nothing.
And that can be easily countered by in MMA fight, how many do that happen and if it did, would the 11 guys against three be declared winner? Probably not, they probably would be disqualified, and probably lose their fighting license. Same with boxing and just about most other combat sports. And probably wont get paid and or actually have to pay money for those types of actions.

I have *never* seen an MMA fight involve more than 2 competitors...
But why penalise dogpiling, when you should also penalise *helping your team mates* via any means those in an open PvP zone...
Buffs, debuffs, healing...That all "contributes" towards dogpiling in my mind.
if you don't want that to happen in an open PvP zone... then you might as well just scrap the open PvP zone in the first place.
And in my mind, putting people into teams, potentially forcing people to swap sides in the zone (so you could potentially end up surrounded by your enemies with minimal warning), is *not* open PvP... that is *structured* PvP

More than likely there will be a timer so you want be in the cage with the enemy of course.

Never seen an MMA fight involve more than two people? Of course not. because dog piling is not allowed. That shows fights can go on without trying to win 8 on one and not an innate thing that *must* happen.

And yeah that also count too with the healing buff debuff thing. Guess I didn't make that one clear from the start. It happens. Again, in situations where it's lop sided full team again few. Not talking about team vs team with about even number of people on each side. As I said way back, they should not even be able to engage. If it's three then no more than three should be able to engage. If it's one, then no more than one should be able to engage heal buff, debuff, pass inspirations. CO managed to implement it pretty well in their open pvp. Then the second suggestion was if that was not possible, then there should be no reward for dog piling, which include helping a team mate with buff debuff healing and etc.

If anyone need the buffs debuffs heals is the person being dog piled.

But if people cant act civil and can only act ina manner where it's detrimental to the game population and or at the expense of paying customer enjoyment, maybe open world pvp need a bit more structure anyways. Although I still think it's open PVP still with the suiggested ideas. I mean even right now not everything under the sun is allowe.d A person is not allowed to go online get a mod make their character invincible and do 99,888 damage with brawl. If people didn't like that, should they stay out of pvp zone or should something be done? or droning, especially when out numbered, would it be proper for a person to pick up the rewards for fighting without fighting and droning instead. The person shouldn't been near drone range. I doubt many people would find that fair. And people that wouldn't like that should they stay out pvp zone or should being rewarded for be addressed? Maybe if dog piling is allowed and get rewards maybe droning and other tricks should be allowed after all having it free for all is the only way to be defined as PVP right? I don't think so. Even with the other structures in place it's still considered open pvp. This is just another issue that should be address. Dog piling should not be rewarded at all anymore than droning should be rewarded. And because of tactic like dog piling being rewarded, that type of open world pvp have caused more damage to games than good. I don't recall a single person that know of that went, " good fight but I'm leaving the game because of it." But seen a lot of people leave because they got tired of dog piling tactics. Villain side was all but empty by 2011, especially pvp side. People got tired of being dog piled. People leave that is less population that is less money that more risk of being shut down. And that is what happened. And looking at the income graph for COX, the income started to drop soon after zone pvp was introduced. from a high of 15.5 million all the way down to about 2.5 million in 4q11 (about 83% drop) And from there it never got back up. I think COX would have done a lot better if dog pilers wasn't busy running people off and out the game and I'm sure they heard plenty of "don't like leave." From the looks of the charts, they did just that. And here we are trying to build a replacement when if they wasn't so busy telling everyone to leave, COX probably would be alive or at least hada lot better chance of being alive today. Then have the nerve to expect many of them to come back and support the savecox cause. Some did, but many did not due to dog pilers ruining their game, which they paid for.

snate56
snate56's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 04:02
How about "calling someone

How about "calling someone out"? You can call out an opponent and for him a window pops up, and if he accepts the challenge, then no one else's powers work against the two combatants.

Steve

___

"Listen, and understand. City of Titans is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until we are live!"
Warcabbit

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
snate56 wrote:
snate56 wrote:

How about "calling someone out"? You can call out an opponent and for him a window pops up, and if he accepts the challenge, then no one else's powers work against the two combatants.
Steve

aka Duelling...

it is not a new concept at all. In fact, it is almost a staple feature in most other MMO's

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
snate56 wrote:
snate56 wrote:

How about "calling someone out"? You can call out an opponent and for him a window pops up, and if he accepts the challenge, then no one else's powers work against the two combatants.
Steve

That would work.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

Gangrel wrote:
jag40 wrote:
Gangrel wrote:
And people are *not* forced to go into an open PvP zone either
Side note: Watching the WWE just now, I just saw 4 good guys beat up one "bad guy", and he wasn't even all that large (5'10, 180lbs)
((to be fair, it was setup to be bad for the "bad guys"... it was 3 of them vs 11 "good guys"))

Scripted wrestling. And even in that situation, the 3 guys get paid for that unlike in PVP where the 3 guy walks away with nothing.
And that can be easily countered by in MMA fight, how many do that happen and if it did, would the 11 guys against three be declared winner? Probably not, they probably would be disqualified, and probably lose their fighting license. Same with boxing and just about most other combat sports. And probably wont get paid and or actually have to pay money for those types of actions.

I have *never* seen an MMA fight involve more than 2 competitors...
But why penalise dogpiling, when you should also penalise *helping your team mates* via any means those in an open PvP zone...
Buffs, debuffs, healing...That all "contributes" towards dogpiling in my mind.
if you don't want that to happen in an open PvP zone... then you might as well just scrap the open PvP zone in the first place.
And in my mind, putting people into teams, potentially forcing people to swap sides in the zone (so you could potentially end up surrounded by your enemies with minimal warning), is *not* open PvP... that is *structured* PvP

More than likely there will be a timer so you want be in the cage with the enemy of course.
Never seen an MMA fight involve more than two people? Of course not. because dog piling is not allowed. That shows fights can go on without trying to win 8 on one and not an innate thing that *must* happen.
And yeah that also count too with the healing buff debuff thing. Guess I didn't make that one clear from the start. It happens. Again, in situations where it's lop sided full team again few. Not talking about team vs team with about even number of people on each side. As I said way back, they should not even be able to engage. If it's three then no more than three should be able to engage. If it's one, then no more than one should be able to engage heal buff, debuff, pass inspirations. CO managed to implement it pretty well in their open pvp. Then the second suggestion was if that was not possible, then there should be no reward for dog piling, which include helping a team mate with buff debuff healing and etc.
If anyone need the buffs debuffs heals is the person being dog piled.
But if people cant act civil and can only act ina manner where it's detrimental to the game population and or at the expense of paying customer enjoyment, maybe open world pvp need a bit more structure anyways. Although I still think it's open PVP still with the suiggested ideas. I mean even right now not everything under the sun is allowe.d A person is not allowed to go online get a mod make their character invincible and do 99,888 damage with brawl. If people didn't like that, should they stay out of pvp zone or should something be done? or droning, especially when out numbered, would it be proper for a person to pick up the rewards for fighting without fighting and droning instead. The person shouldn't been near drone range. I doubt many people would find that fair. And people that wouldn't like that should they stay out pvp zone or should being rewarded for be addressed? Maybe if dog piling is allowed and get rewards maybe droning and other tricks should be allowed after all having it free for all is the only way to be defined as PVP right? I don't think so. Even with the other structures in place it's still considered open pvp. This is just another issue that should be address. Dog piling should not be rewarded at all anymore than droning should be rewarded. And because of tactic like dog piling being rewarded, that type of open world pvp have caused more damage to games than good. I don't recall a single person that know of that went, " good fight but I'm leaving the game because of it." But seen a lot of people leave because they got tired of dog piling tactics. Villain side was all but empty by 2011, especially pvp side. People got tired of being dog piled. People leave that is less population that is less money that more risk of being shut down. And that is what happened. And looking at the income graph for COX, the income started to drop soon after zone pvp was introduced. from a high of 15.5 million all the way down to about 2.5 million in 4q11 (about 83% drop) And from there it never got back up. I think COX would have done a lot better if dog pilers wasn't busy running people off and out the game and I'm sure they heard plenty of "don't like leave." From the looks of the charts, they did just that. And here we are trying to build a replacement when if they wasn't so busy telling everyone to leave, COX probably would be alive or at least hada lot better chance of being alive today. Then have the nerve to expect many of them to come back and support the savecox cause. Some did, but many did not due to dog pilers ruining their game, which they paid for.

Wait, Did you just pull the "PvPers killed City of Heroes" card?

Anyways, I think that the ONLY way in which we could resolve this discussion, is by someone conceeding.

So i am conceeding. with one caveat.

There has to be a structure for it, and the numbers on both sides have to be equal. If anyone drops out for ANY reason, the fight has to be restarted (or a replacement has to be subbed in as soon as possible. People are not allowed to swap sides. If a replacement is not found... or too many drop out in one go... the side with the drop outs automatically conceeds the "duel".

Oh, and once the team dual has started, players are not allowed to swap sides... and no outsiders (nor villain mobs) can be harm the combatants that are fighting...

Essentially, take it into an arena/battleground... where that way you *can* prevent people from jumping in to help out either side.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

There has to be a structure for it, and the numbers on both sides have to be equal. If anyone drops out for ANY reason, the fight has to be restarted (or a replacement has to be subbed in as soon as possible. People are not allowed to swap sides. If a replacement is not found... or too many drop out in one go... the side with the drop outs automatically conceeds the "duel".
Oh, and once the team dual has started, players are not allowed to swap sides... and no outsiders (nor villain mobs) can be harm the combatants that are fighting.

that'll work

HarvesterOfEyes
HarvesterOfEyes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 08:19
Je ne suis pas dans l

Je ne suis pas dans l'habitude de predre des ordres de l'ennemi.

Get yourself right; the world has enough problems.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:

Je ne suis pas dans l'habitude de predre des ordres de l'ennemi.

You're the one said you're "Still not offering any value judgements." I didn't order you to do anything. I just agreed with you said by saying maybe you shouldn't. Are you now changing your mind?
First you revealed you self to be a low life coward, which you probably are in real life too. Now, you cant even hold true to your own words. That is sad. really. At first I was irked. Now I just simply pity you.

By the way, how much are you going to put into this game? I bet you area free loader too. Want stuff your way without consideration for others but probably wont put in a dime. But you and you ilk owe a lot of people a lot of money. You should pay back every single person you ran away and every single person that don't have a game now because of you and your ilk every single cent they put into COX. Or at the very least, owe them one hell of an apology, but I doubt you have the guts to man up and do it, without 8 of your buddies backing you up. Because if it wasn't for you and your ilk I'd be playing COX right now. But no, you and your ilk had to fudge it up for everybody. Hopefully it made your miserable life a little bit more worth living. I mostly stood by as you and your ilk destroyed a perfectly good game, but I do not plan on letting stand by in silence and let it happen again especially before it even gets started.

HarvesterOfEyes
HarvesterOfEyes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 08:19
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
Je ne suis pas dans l'habitude de predre des ordres de l'ennemi.

You're the one said you're "Still not offering any value judgements." I didn't order you to do anything. I just agreed with you said by saying maybe you shouldn't. Are you now changing your mind?

Please quote for everyone where I've made any value judgement about PvP styles.

They are what they are.

What I've offered you is the same advice I offer friends: if doing something makes you unhappy, stop doing it.

Your rather wild reactions to that simple suggestion are why I've chosen to stop trying to reason with you.

I will however not desist from my course. Please do just ignore everything I post. There's no good to be gained unless you can learn to comprehend what is written without projecting yourself in to it.

Get yourself right; the world has enough problems.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

Gangrel wrote:
There has to be a structure for it, and the numbers on both sides have to be equal. If anyone drops out for ANY reason, the fight has to be restarted (or a replacement has to be subbed in as soon as possible. People are not allowed to swap sides. If a replacement is not found... or too many drop out in one go... the side with the drop outs automatically conceeds the "duel".
Oh, and once the team dual has started, players are not allowed to swap sides... and no outsiders (nor villain mobs) can be harm the combatants that are fighting.

that'll work

And i just described an Arena match and NOT open PvP.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:

jag40 wrote:
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
Je ne suis pas dans l'habitude de predre des ordres de l'ennemi.

You're the one said you're "Still not offering any value judgements." I didn't order you to do anything. I just agreed with you said by saying maybe you shouldn't. Are you now changing your mind?

Please quote for everyone where I've made any value judgement about PvP styles.
They are what they are.
What I've offered you is the same advice I offer friends: if doing something makes you unhappy, stop doing it.
Your rather wild reactions to that simple suggestion are why I've chosen to stop trying to reason with you.
I will however not desist from my course. Please do just ignore everything I post. There's no good to be gained unless you can learn to comprehend what is written without projecting yourself in to it.

You stopped reasoning when you suggested basically that I or anyone else have no right to play the game even though they payed the same. That's not a wild reaction to nothing. That's a reaction to you, being a self righteous prick that is not considering that you are not the only one that payed money to it. And if people don't like being dog piled on, THAT IS what making them unhappy. NOT PVP.

I comprehend just fine. You seem to have the problem because I never said you made any type of judgement call on pvp. You the one that said, and the quote is right there. Still not offering any value judgements were your EXACT words.

You should of been ignoring what I wrote but you persist in this topic the next, causing trouble. I stopped being reasonable with you when you stopped being reasonable with me by being insulting. As I said, you can stop anytime you like but if you insist on talking to me, here and in those other topics, I might just reply. You haven't added anything to any reply since then, and actually jumped to other targets starting mess, which some would call trolling. While I have the time, I don't mind going on with your foolish game for now. You can puff yourself up like you are the only one that invest in the game the reality you will have to deal with s that, you are not that important no more no less than any other paying customer whether you like it or not. If you don't like that, why not take your own advice you like sticking to, and leave the MMO. If you cant even take your own advice, then why should anyone take your advice and leave and not take it any other way but as an insult that their money means nothing compared to yours?

HarvesterOfEyes
HarvesterOfEyes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 08:19
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

You stopped reasoning when you suggested basically that I or anyone else have no right to play the game even though they payed the same.

Please supply the quote you describe here.

Get yourself right; the world has enough problems.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:

jag40 wrote:
You stopped reasoning when you suggested basically that I or anyone else have no right to play the game even though they payed the same.

Please supply the quote you describe here.

"1. Implementing restrictions on team size, etc makes it not "open". *If you don't like open-zone PvP don't participate in it.*

2. Ambushes and other traps are a natural outcome of the "open" model. Most people who PvP play to win. They work very hard to find every advantage. In "open" PvP that means overpowering and surprise attacks. Those are naturally advantageous situations. If you don't like how those people play, avoid them. *They can only dog-pile you if you permit them, and you permit by entering an open PvP realm.*"

Where the astericks are is what I'm talking about mostly. No one said they didnt like open world PVP. And from your statement it seems you are saying that dog pilers ARE open world PVP and that it belongs to to them and everyone that dont like should stay out because it means they dont like open world PVP. Even if they paid money and havea right to participate in PVP as a paying customer. Which then in the second one, is classic victim blaming alogn the lines of "Well if ag irl didnt want to get raped, then she shouldnt be i nthis world. It's her fault for getting raped and if she didnt want it to happen, she wouldnt have allowed it."
Not ot mention trying to be funny with the foriegn language posts which

At that point, taht is when reasoning been left behind in favor of insulting condecending, it's the victim fault illogical line of thinking. What, I guess you believe that it's someone's fault for being called the N word too huh, by your logic? If they didnt want to be called the N word, they should stop being black?

See what I'm getting at? What you siad is very insulting to people who paid for the game, rather not have people run off because of your type of behavior and ruin the gamne in the long run, and anyone that pays for the game have a right to enjoyment and should be free from dog piling and dog piling should not be rewarded.

You had a chance to keep it civil. Other posters, even though some didnt agree, still kept it civil without coming off as "Well my money is more important than yours so you should leave if you dont like it. Yeah you paid but it doesnt matter because what I like to do trumps everyone else's way and I should be able to grief people and reap rewards for it."

If you dont want to have to bother with taking in consideration for others, there are plenty of single player console games out there that you can play instead of being a cancer in mmo games.

HarvesterOfEyes
HarvesterOfEyes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 08:19
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
jag40 wrote:
You stopped reasoning when you suggested basically that I or anyone else have no right to play the game even though they payed the same.

Please supply the quote you describe here.

"1. Implementing restrictions on team size, etc makes it not "open". *If you don't like open-zone PvP don't participate in it.*
2. Ambushes and other traps are a natural outcome of the "open" model. Most people who PvP play to win. They work very hard to find every advantage. In "open" PvP that means overpowering and surprise attacks. Those are naturally advantageous situations. If you don't like how those people play, avoid them. *They can only dog-pile you if you permit them, and you permit by entering an open PvP realm.*"

Where the astericks are is what I'm talking about mostly.

So your feelings are deeply wounded by that?

If that's the threshhold for what's insulting when said to you, that is, a piece of friendly advice that I live by: if something you're doing makes you unhappy, stop doing it, well then prepare yourself.

This is fair warning: You are going to really really hate the rest of this post. Get some fresh batteries for your Ronco Victimeter® because the horn will be blaring, the lights flashing and the bells ringing before the end of this.

If you're the sort that loses sleep over these things, best check now to make sure your Sominex isn't expired or if you're hypoglycemic, go in to the closet and pull out that bottle of Boone's Farm Strawberry Hill you've been saving for an emergency. If you have a heart condition take your nitroglycerin now. If you are hypertensive... well best put down a heavy drop cloth.

It will likely be a worse trauma for you than the last episode of Friends.

You made the following claim:

jag40 wrote:

you suggested basically that I or anyone else have no right to play the game even though they payed the same.

No right? Where? Where in the name of human decency did I champion any infringement of anyone's "rights". Obviously you can't back that or any of your other slanders up, so you just resort to hurling more slander like an octopus hurls ink.

You use the term "right" but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Am I infringing on your rights to tell you that there's nothing you can do about the sky being blue or that there's no Santa Claus? [OOOps! did I give something away?] If that's all the emotional fortitude you have then you need to go live on an island somewhere far away from human contact.

If you touch a red hot stove you will burn yourself. If you go in to open PvP people will try to ambush and/or zerg you [and the ones who do it all day will often succeed]. Neither of those is a value judgement. Clearly you don't understand that term either.

Did you know that if you play a set of tennis the person on the other side of the net will try to hit the ball past you? The horror!

Did you know that bloody massacres take place in this world?

...and that saying so does not indicate one's approval of the situation. That's too complex for you, I get it.

Those guys who ganged up on you in CoH [how many years ago now?...and on what server?] they really traumatized you didn't they? If it's really that bad you need to get counseling. You continue to be their victim by your own foolish choice.

If not you need to let it go. Perhaps you should seek out Dr. Switzer.

So we can calibrate our language going forward, please by all means tell me if any of the following statements meet your threshold of "insulting":

jag40 wrote:

...you are too yellow belly to fight go back to pve actually put in work

First you revealed you self to be a low life coward, which you probably are in real life too.

I bet you area free loader too.

I doubt you have the guts to man up and do it

...a cancer in mmo games.

Would any of that hurt your tender feelings? How about you have a go at the inveterate boor who said all of those things with absolutely no grounds for any of it other than his own commitment to demented behavior?

Well here's one bit of good news: I'm not in the least bit insulted by any of your mad ravings. Your emotionally overwrought opinions, formed entirely out of the ether don't mean anything. You have no power in this regard, and no matter how crude, rude and round the bend crazy your posts, your incoherent venting is nothing more than a tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.

The really amusing part is where you jump the conclusion that I'm advocating for PvP. I'm sending that around to my friends for the laugh they'll get out of it. There's really nothing at all to justify that except your own desperate need to play the victim. If you'd do a bit of research you can hear what I really think about it.

Research, that's where you take a break from slandering people about whom you are completely ignorant and go try to find some facts. It would be good for your soul.

PS

This particular false-attribution you made:

jag40 wrote:

You might as well say that well if a girl don't want to be raped she shouldn't walk among men and because she in the world she should expect to get raped huh. Apparently you are one of those people that believe that.

That slander alone pretty well disqualifies you from ever lodging the complaint that anyone, anywhere is "uncivil". That's another term you just don't comprehend.

Get yourself right; the world has enough problems.

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:

jag40 wrote:
HarvesterOfEyes wrote:
jag40 wrote:
You stopped reasoning when you suggested basically that I or anyone else have no right to play the game even though they payed the same.

Please supply the quote you describe here.

"1. Implementing restrictions on team size, etc makes it not "open". *If you don't like open-zone PvP don't participate in it.*
2. Ambushes and other traps are a natural outcome of the "open" model. Most people who PvP play to win. They work very hard to find every advantage. In "open" PvP that means overpowering and surprise attacks. Those are naturally advantageous situations. If you don't like how those people play, avoid them. *They can only dog-pile you if you permit them, and you permit by entering an open PvP realm.*"

Where the astericks are is what I'm talking about mostly.
So your feelings are deeply wounded by that?
If that's the threshhold for what's insulting when said to you, that is, a piece of friendly advice that I live by: if something you're doing makes you unhappy, stop doing it, well then prepare yourself.
This is fair warning: You are going to really really hate the rest of this post. Get some fresh batteries for your Ronco Victimeter® because the horn will be blaring, the lights flashing and the bells ringing before the end of this.
If you're the sort that loses sleep over these things, best check now to make sure your Sominex isn't expired or if you're hypoglycemic, go in to the closet and pull out that bottle of Boone's Farm Strawberry Hill you've been saving for an emergency. If you have a heart condition take your nitroglycerin now. If you are hypertensive... well best put down a heavy drop cloth.
It will likely be a worse trauma for you than the last episode of Friends.
You made the following claim:
jag40 wrote:
you suggested basically that I or anyone else have no right to play the game even though they payed the same.
No right? Where? Where in the name of human decency did I champion any infringement of anyone's "rights". Obviously you can't back that or any of your other slanders up, so you just resort to hurling more slander like an octopus hurls ink.
You use the term "right" but it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Am I infringing on your rights to tell you that there's nothing you can do about the sky being blue or that there's no Santa Claus? [OOOps! did I give something away?] If that's all the emotional fortitude you have then you need to go live on an island somewhere far away from human contact.
If you touch a red hot stove you will burn yourself. If you go in to open PvP people will try to ambush and/or zerg you [and the ones who do it all day will often succeed]. Neither of those is a value judgement. Clearly you don't understand that term either.
Did you know that if you play a set of tennis the person on the other side of the net will try to hit the ball past you? The horror!
Did you know that bloody massacres take place in this world?
...and that saying so does not indicate one's approval of the situation. That's too complex for you, I get it.
Those guys who ganged up on you in CoH [how many years ago now?...and on what server?] they really traumatized you didn't they? If it's really that bad you need to get counseling. You continue to be their victim by your own foolish choice.
If not you need to let it go. Perhaps you should seek out Dr. Switzer.

So we can calibrate our language going forward, please by all means tell me if any of the following statements meet your threshold of "insulting":
jag40 wrote:
...you are too yellow belly to fight go back to pve actually put in work
First you revealed you self to be a low life coward, which you probably are in real life too.
I bet you area free loader too.
I doubt you have the guts to man up and do it
...a cancer in mmo games.

Would any of that hurt your tender feelings? How about you have a go at the inveterate boor who said all of those things with absolutely no grounds for any of it other than his own commitment to demented behavior?
Well here's one bit of good news: I'm not in the least bit insulted by any of your mad ravings. Your emotionally overwrought opinions, formed entirely out of the ether don't mean anything. You have no power in this regard, and no matter how crude, rude and round the bend crazy your posts, your incoherent venting is nothing more than a tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.
The really amusing part is where you jump the conclusion that I'm advocating for PvP. I'm sending that around to my friends for the laugh they'll get out of it. There's really nothing at all to justify that except your own desperate need to play the victim. If you'd do a bit of research you can hear what I really think about it.
Research, that's where you take a break from slandering people about whom you are completely ignorant and go try to find some facts. It would be good for your soul.

PS

This particular false-attribution you made:
jag40 wrote:
You might as well say that well if a girl don't want to be raped she shouldn't walk among men and because she in the world she should expect to get raped huh. Apparently you are one of those people that believe that.

That slander alone pretty well disqualifies you from ever lodging the complaint that anyone, anywhere is "uncivil". That's another term you just don't comprehend.

There's no slander anywhere. I comprehend civility just fine. You''e the one that said it's the person that is getting dog piled fault for getting dog piled on. That was YOUR statement. Which again is like saying it's the girl fault for being raped. Blaming the victim.

Who ever said I got dog piled on or that I'm talking about me getting dog piled on? Unlike you I'm capable of considering the other players that pay money for the game and try to enjoy the game. You lack that consideration and no wonder you would blame the girl for being raped as if she can control the behavior of other's choices. Yes it's the same logic. A person usually don't go into a pvp zone and say, dog pile on me anymore than a woman say come rape me. But in your head as you said, it's their fault.

Of course you are sending this around to all of your friends with validates my point. You cant do anything by yourself. You must always have your friends to validate your pitiful self worth.

And there is plenty of grounds for everything I said. If you didn't want to insult or didn't want ot create grounds for this discussion you wouldn't have said what you said in the first place.

Of course I know massacres occurs in this world. I bet you think it's the victims fault for being massacred too huh as you said about people being dog piled on. It's their fault.

Son, I probably seen more things than many people will see in 60 years of their lives. What have you done? Have you joined the service? Don't talk to me about massacres and it's the victim's fault until you seen your friend's leg get blown off, or see them bleed to death in front of your eyes, or see a group of soldiers get burnt to crisp and smell their burning flesh when two hours ago I was joking with them what we are all going to do when we get back home to our wives and kids. So yeah it's annoying when people like you sit around probably living off the government dime, talking about it's the victim's fault for being massacred and it's their fault for being there. Do not speak of massacres and stuff you don't not understand.

Nothing I said about you is slander and with each statement you make you continue to show how stupid you are and I think deep down you know good and well it's not the victim's fault but to show out in front of all your buddies, you put on a show. I think I'm on point with my description of you because you acted out every last bit of what I described and reinforced them with each of your statements. That's not slander, that is your reality, boy.

If you ever have or have a children, lets hope they don't get raped, but if they do remember you line of thinking. It's their fault and you bet not dare go after the perp. Or you'll just prove again, you're a hypocrite.

But either way, however you like to play pvp is fine and just like you don't agree with what I think pvp should be, I don't agree with yours. I think it's safe to say that I don't like you and you probably don't like me. So what can we do? You probably wont take your advise and leave and I don't plan on leaving here either. Maybe it's best we just not bother with each other. Apparently you think it's the victim's fault for what ever happen to them and I think it's not the victim fault. Whatever. Cant change your mind. Maybe you need to go through something that is a significant event before you realize that the victim isn't always at fault. Until then, not even sure why I'm still trying to be civil with someone who don't even know the meaning of it, but anyways, this isn't going anywhere nor will solve anything. As long as you don't bother me or insult me again, I wont even pay attention to you. You probably think nothing I say have any merit and I think the same about you. I'm hanging it up. Now what are you going to do? Continue to make an ass of yourself? If you choose to do that, you will continue from this point on doing it by yourself. It was entertaining while it lasted but now time for me to change the channel. My points still stand.

Kovacs
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/08/2013 - 17:50
i think you all need to take

i think you all need to take it down a peg or two in here before a mod steps in, remember, this forum is PG.

_______________________________________
Kovacs - Leader of "The Titan Legacy" SuperGroup
The First SuperGroup In City of Titans History - Come Be A Part Of It!!!
http://cityoftitans.com/forum/building-first-super-powered-family

jag40
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 10:51
Luscious wrote:
Luscious wrote:

i think you all need to take it down a peg or two in here before a mod steps in, remember, this forum is PG.

You're right, I have the sand to admit, I may have took it too far. Should have controlled myself better. I just don't take kindly to being insulted or "blame the victim" nonsense.

I must remember that people have different views and no matter how sick and twisted it is, it's still their view of the world. I must keep that in mind when dealing with "certain things".

syntaxerror37
syntaxerror37's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/24/2013 - 11:01
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

I find this comment interesting, because Guild Wars 2 World V World can be a VERY dog piling experience, especially if you go into the map at the wrong time, and end up by your lonesome (it has happened to me).
But I do also like the fact that your server can get XP/craft/gather/other bonus for doing stuff in the World Vs World.

Oh sure, everyone has had it happen at least once, say running out from the base to meet the main group and you stumble upon a group and get hammered. But even that can help your world, because now you know the enemy is moving to take a supply camp and you can inform the team.

It's not about whether you get caught in a dog pile or not to me, its the feel of how the WvW plays, it feels right for an MMO, at least to me.

-----------------------------------------
I never set anything on fire accidentally!

The Titan Legacy - Defender of the Inner Flame

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
syntaxerror37 wrote:
syntaxerror37 wrote:

Gangrel wrote:
I find this comment interesting, because Guild Wars 2 World V World can be a VERY dog piling experience, especially if you go into the map at the wrong time, and end up by your lonesome (it has happened to me).
But I do also like the fact that your server can get XP/craft/gather/other bonus for doing stuff in the World Vs World.

Oh sure, everyone has had it happen at least once, say running out from the base to meet the main group and you stumble upon a group and get hammered. But even that can help your world, because now you know the enemy is moving to take a supply camp and you can inform the team.
It's not about whether you get caught in a dog pile or not to me, its the feel of how the WvW plays, it feels right for an MMO, at least to me.

That reminds me, i still have one point of interest to get so that i can say "100% WvW exploration"... but whenever I have looked into WvW, my server has never been in that corner to *easily* get it.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Comicsluvr
Comicsluvr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/07/2013 - 03:39
To me PvP has options but

To me PvP has options but then I'm an option kinda guy. You want one on one with an opponent? Ok...set it up. You want to take a small team against a small team? Ok...we can do that too. Some sort of handicap system so the veteran can give the new guy an even shot. And some way to rate your opponent so that if all goes well, the opponent gets lots of starts and (maybe) more matches. If the player is consistently a jerk then folks see it and they don't play him.

PvP to me means playing against another player and all their skills instead of an AI that may or may not have any surprises up its sleeve.

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

HarvesterOfEyes
HarvesterOfEyes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/09/2013 - 08:19
Darth Fez wrote:
Darth Fez wrote:

What is PvP to you?

Item the first: I'm not a PvPer. I've dabbled a little bit in PvP but I can't claim to be good at it or to particularly enjoy it (with the possible exception of my relatively brief stint in WAR).

Item the rest:

When the "U NO U" shouting match starts between PvE and PvP, each side tends to assume that the other is some monolithic entity with only one view of the subject. I'm curious to learn how the world looks from a PvPer's perspective. Broadly put, as far as I've been able to determine, PvPers fall into two categories:

1. They have no particular interest in the likes of gear progression, just give them an even playing field and rated PvP;
2. They are interested in gear progression and want to obtain better gear to become more powerful in PvP.

Following this premise, it occurred to me that the best PvP experience a MMO could provide is to have rated PvP in which everyone is equal as far as gear goes and open world/instanced PvP in which gear does have an impact.

Am I remotely on target with my observations?

What's your ideal PvP offering? What would TPP have to do for you to break out the gold stars for the PvP?

Depending on where you spot the ball, the MMORPG genre has been around for about 16 years. In that time pretty much every significant variant of PvP has been tried. My position is that there aren't going to be any major innovations in PvP play for MMORPG's. Therefore I maintain that the styles of play that currently exist are what you have to work with.

Since I don't believe there are any likely innovations that are going to set your game apart from the dozens of existing systems, I maintain that it would be a mistake to put a lot of effort in to it. For those who say it's about opening up your game to the largest possible market, I reply that the most effective route for an MMORPG is to focus on what sets it apart from all the others. In the case of CoH, PvP was not the feature that set the game apart. For anything going forward that will be structured like CoH or try to appeal to its loyalists, I suggest that PvP is still not going to be the feature that sets the game apart.

My assessment is that RPG-style character development has never really been compatible with PvP and putting the two together is never going to result in something that works they way a Reese's Peanutbutter Cup does. The problem is that once you permit character differentiation and specialization (which are fundamental to RPG-style play) any chance of "equality" goes the way of the Dodo. From then on, "balancing" PvP becomes an exercise of breaking the longest of your fistful of straws. After you do that all the straws are still not equal, you just end up with a different straw being the longest. If you repeat the process you end up with a fistful of stubs.

So in my idealization of the game I'd like to play, if there's any PvP offered it's going to be a fairly simple implementation of existing styles. Yes you can't please everyone, best if the developers put something out that they themselves are satisfied to play and commit themselves to no more than bug fixes and the occasional tweak.

The classic difficulty I see game developers having is that they accept the notion that there's any way to polish PvP up and mollify the majority of PvP enthusiasts. It may be possible to do but I don't believe you'll ever know if you succeeded. I say that because no matter how much effort is put in to it, there will be forum posters posting ridiculous walls of text about how you need to service their personal tastes or else. That game is the same as Heroin Hero.

Cooks who try to make food to please everyone end up with bland and uninteresting dishes. The same applies to game development. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Get yourself right; the world has enough problems.

Zombie Man
Zombie Man's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/26/2013 - 19:23
jag40 wrote:
jag40 wrote:

First you revealed you self to be a low life coward, which you probably are in real life too.

jag40 wrote:

Luscious wrote:
i think you all need to take it down a peg or two in here before a mod steps in, remember, this forum is PG.

You're right, I have the sand to admit, I may have took it too far. Should have controlled myself better. I just don't take kindly to being insulted or "blame the victim" nonsense.

Moderator Note:

Indeed, you did take it too far, personalizing a behavior you don't like into a personality trait... a classic ad hominem personal attack.

Thanks for your self-retraction.

Online Community Manager & Forum Moderator

Zombie Man
Zombie Man's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/26/2013 - 19:23
Now, speaking as a member of

Now, speaking as a member of the dev team and privy to lots of conversations on this matter, remember what was said above by another Dev: we won't force people into PvP.

And so, if there is an 'open PvP zone' in TPP, it won't have any of the games or badges or missions that would attract non-PvPers. It can't, otherwise, it would violate our commitment to not forcing PvP on people. It would just be a free-for-all zone. Making it a factional fight wouldn't even work... in CoH, people played heroes 2-to-1 over villains. And that wouldn't ever be fair sides.

Now, that same zone can have missions and badges and games either as an instanced non-PvP zone or as an arena map that would balance sides.

This way you get it all: non-PvP map, free-for-all PvP map, and arena map. Players' choice.

Online Community Manager & Forum Moderator

Thunder Glove
Thunder Glove's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 17:09
I not only don't like PvP

I not only don't like PvP itself, I don't like it on a meta level. It tends to break up the playerbase into PvP and PvM "camps", each one blaming the other for every change to skills, gear, or mechanics. Heck, this topic has already gone that way.

What was great about CoH is that it downplayed PvP and emphasized teaming up with others - even across alignment lines - to defeat common foes. Other players were seen as potential allies, not potential threats. And that promoted a very positive atmosphere. PvP more often than not just spills out of the actual fight and into the chat and forums.

So I definitely think that PvP needs to be downplayed. Not eliminated, because it's just too darn popular a feature, but definitely separated from the PvE/PvM aspects of the game so nobody can be attacked inadvertently, and it should be that way from day 1.

Sentry
Sentry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/03/2013 - 18:48
There has been a lot of

There has been a lot of discussion on these topics already on the MWM forums about PvP. I guess this will be my first post on these forums.

To introduce myself a little, I PvPed on a weekly basis from i4 arena to the very end of the game, roughly 6 years of PvP experience. I've participated in leagues (8v8s), duels (1v1) and ended up concentrating on theory-crafting through mids and DPS/Survival excel spreadsheets. I made sure to fully understand the game mechanics involved, including how DR affected every little aspect (=x*(1-ATAN(a*x)*2/PI()*b). Just a week ago, I finished a build for a Thug/Pain that would abuse the +HP rebirth and make the pets immune to judgement spams, which would typically kill all the mastermind's pets.

And perhaps more importantly than all that, I'm still in contact with a couple of PvPers who know more than I do haha
PvPing in CoH was a big aspect in my life; hopefully I can bring that knowledge to helping develop the ideas for this game.

I'm glad this thread was made. Having gear progression or not in a PvP system is a huge deal. I'm going to go ahead and quote my post from MWM.

Quote:

If you look at the most popular PvP games in the world; LoL, Starcraft, CoD, Halo etc. They all have something in common. A new player can join and have almost all the same gear as everyone else. If a pro player makes a new account in any of those games, he can still dominate. That's because they're all skill and knowledge based, and while their gear can have small factors, they all remain as small factors.

The best years of CoH PvP was when all that was required was SOs (and not even max level). The worst year of CoH was the end. To be viable it was required to have a 5 billion build, every accolade, every t3 incarnate and even Enh boosters on some things.

Let's say you're a PvEr who decides he wants to try PvP. Would it be better to take your character in and be of a equal or similar level of power to everyone else? Or would you prefer knowing you have BOTH disadvantages of less experience + less gear?

TL;DR Don't introduce PvP gear, that makes it imbalanced even more for the beginners
I'm all for having...incentive in PvP. I don't think +power or +advantages should be that. I'd suggest costume pieces, sort of like Team Fortress 2 hats, but, then you're locking PvE costume pieces behind PvP, and that's a bad idea. It would be a good idea if the game was purely PvP. I don't have a good suggestion for incentive, I'm sure the dev team will think of something.

As for the post directly above mine; downplaying PvP would be unhealthy for the game.

PvPers were sort of an untapped source in City of Heroes. It was gated behind weeks of PvE.

I will, once again, advise not cutting off a huge portion of our possible population by making the game PvE centric. Don't forget, the most popular online game in the entire world at the moment doesn't even have PvE (League, 30+ million pop, pure 5v5 PvP).

Ellysyn
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 15:45
I'm not much of a pvp'er. I

I'm not much of a pvp'er. I generally stay away from it and hang out on the PVE or RP PVE servers. But I do mess with it at times. Mainly for the purpose of having the gear. It's very much a really hard thing to balance. Specially with so many powers and new powers getting introduced down the line. I always kind of liked the sort of system where each class has a weakness towards something so you didn't just have that one class running in and steamrolling everything. Be nice to know that one of the classes was strong against him and could help drop him like in RTS games. You have ya foot soliders, cavalry, pikes, ranged, etc. And each is weak to one of those.

I was on a pvp server only once. And was clearly not for me. Having a lvl 50 camp in the town insta killing every lvl 8 trying to quest in that area just wasn't my cup of tea. I have gone to pvp zones. Always had little fun there. Mainly cause its neat to see so much crazy action happening.

----------------------------------------
Owner and Big Sister of the Justice Girls -Champions Online-City of Titans-
Forum Breaker
Leader of the Ellysyn Dark Ensemble

Kuriosity's Kat
Kuriosity&#039;s Kat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/25/2013 - 19:43
This is important. I am not

This is important. I am not a PVPer, I tried it in City for the Rep badges but not really my cuppa, I WILL NOT play a game that is PVP Centric, OR has Open World PVP, that starts crabbing into territory where you really can't team with folks you like because they are in different factions.
That said if you have a group that are adults about it and want to test against each other, have an arena or other area for capture the flag or other contests that aren't Just straight up "defeat the Other player" I have no problems.
Please for all that is the sake of the spirit of the game I plead don't make this a PVP Centric game. establish at the outset that this is what PVP gets and that is it.

*sigh* this will teach me to respond before I have read the thread all the way through. Thanks Z-Man for clarifying things.

Knitting while waiting for THE Beta

Hube2
Hube2's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 4 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 15:12
Zombie Man wrote:
Zombie Man wrote:

Now, speaking as a member of the dev team and privy to lots of conversations on this matter, remember what was said above by another Dev: we won't force people into PvP.
And so, if there is an 'open PvP zone' in TPP, it won't have any of the games or badges or missions that would attract non-PvPers. It can't, otherwise, it would violate our commitment to not forcing PvP on people. It would just be a free-for-all zone. Making it a factional fight wouldn't even work... in CoH, people played heroes 2-to-1 over villains. And that wouldn't ever be fair sides.
Now, that same zone can have missions and badges and games either as an instanced non-PvP zone or as an arena map that would balance sides.
This way you get it all: non-PvP map, free-for-all PvP map, and arena map. Players' choice.

I should have just skipped right to the end and read backward instead of reading all the posts in this thread in order. This is all I really needed to know.

If I choose to avoid PvP then there won't be anything of interest to me wherever it is happening. If you manage to balance it, which I find highly unlikely I may try it again, but if it's like it was in CoX I'll just skip it, thanks.

Lord Nightmare
Lord Nightmare's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 8 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 15:44
PvP to me is an option and a

PvP to me is an option and a nice diversion from the missions and such. That being said, It's also one of the 2 ways I usually work out RP conflicts aside from rolling die.

*dodges tomatoes being thrown*

OY! Now wait a tick! That being said... I focus on concept builds. Honestly. And I definitely hate farming to be the super OP mofo.. so ya. Was fine in CoX with losing to people (after all.. heroes AND villains do lose) and I'm fine with losing in RP and PvP... unless the person is using an exploit or ganking. Then I get pissed after the third time and go hardball.

Revenge is motivation enough. At least it's honest...

Roleplayer; Esteemed Villain

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 52 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
Sentry wrote:
Sentry wrote:

If you look at the most popular PvP games in the world; LoL, Starcraft, CoD, Halo etc. They all have something in common. A new player can join and have almost all the same gear as everyone else. If a pro player makes a new account in any of those games, he can still dominate. That's because they're all skill and knowledge based, and while their gear can have small factors, they all remain as small factors.
The best years of CoH PvP was when all that was required was SOs (and not even max level). The worst year of CoH was the end. To be viable it was required to have a 5 billion build, every accolade, every t3 incarnate and even Enh boosters on some things.
Let's say you're a PvEr who decides he wants to try PvP. Would it be better to take your character in and be of a equal or similar level of power to everyone else? Or would you prefer knowing you have BOTH disadvantages of less experience + less gear?
TL;DR Don't introduce PvP gear, that makes it imbalanced even more for the beginners
I'm all for having...incentive in PvP. I don't think +power or +advantages should be that. I'd suggest costume pieces, sort of like Team Fortress 2 hats, but, then you're locking PvE costume pieces behind PvP, and that's a bad idea. It would be a good idea if the game was purely PvP. I don't have a good suggestion for incentive, I'm sure the dev team will think of something.

Thank you for that post, Sentry. (Better late than never and all that rot, eh?)

I actually picked up on this trend by chance, as much as anything, from SWTOR of all places. That PvP gear tends to present a high barrier to entry was one of the main arguments against having PvP gear. Of course, there are those who do like PvP gear and want it (or at least some form of incentive, as Sentry says) so it would be ideal if both could be represented eventually.

I'd be much more inclined to dip a toe into PvP if I knew that I'd most likely lose because I suck at PvP. It's considerably less temping if I know I'd lose not only because I'm not good at PvP, but also because the other guy is so tricked out that my character represents all the challenge of a wet noodle. (The "it only takes you a week to get Silver Sparkly Champion PvP gear now" line didn't do it for me in SWTOR, either.)

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Comicsluvr
Comicsluvr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/07/2013 - 03:39
Here's the main problem with

Here's the main problem with PvP: People. You have nice and nasty people in ANY environment and as we all know games are no different. I had good PvP games but I also had so MANY negative experiences that I stayed away. This shrinks the PvP community into a relatively small knot of players, each acting like they have a chip on their shoulder.

Balance is important but the player community will have to sort ITSELF out...nobody else can do it for them.

That being said, I'd like to see PvP offered because done right it can be fun and challenging. Have PvP zones where such players can go if they want. If they encourage others to join them then they will flourish. If they chase everyone who doesn't have a L33t build away then no offense but they get what they deserve.

For everyone else I like the idea of an arena. You get a bunch of mates together who you know you like to game with, you make teams and go to it with no interruptions from anyone else.

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

eric.muller
eric.muller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 17:52
Sorry for not reading the

Sorry for not reading the hole post, but I wanna bring my answer to you.
What is PvP to me?
Dumb to say that is a Player vs Player thing, but I'm gonna try to answer a slightly different question:
What is Hero vs Villain to me?

To start off we need to think of comic books and cartoons as sourcing material, so the most basic thing that happens when a Hero vs Villain battle starts is that A Villain (note that I'm using "A" instead of "The", because we don't need a specific villain here, and it could also be a group them) is under some criminal actions and A Hero comes for the rescue. Now the plot is set and both Hero(s) and Villain(s) are in the same zone where they will fight.
Let's analyze this situation a bit more.
A Villain means there is no specific Villain, same for A Hero. That points us to League of Legends PvP style, where you can see your enemies until the battle starts.
For balancing sides we could use power "tags" like "Tanker", "DPS", "Healer", etc. to get the same amount of each for each side. That means we will never have 5 Healers agains 5 DPS, because it could be unbalanced or even unending loop (DPS hitting damaging and Healears holding).
Another thing that we can point out is that there is a reason for the fight, which I can't really find an example for you guys (help me out here). They are not just fighting because they want PvP points or what so ever. They are siding for good or evil. This brings some RP to the matter. (not saying it should be the only way, but if we have objectives other than defeat the enemy, we could get a more immersive PvP instance. Just for a bad example, but still usefull, Counter-Strike provides this kind of action, where there could be a hero rescue or a villain bomb planting. Just PvP for "Defeat and Win" cannot get you so involve with the main thematic of the game "Comic Books", and providing objectives in the middle of a fight you can have a distracting and strategical adding into the hole PvP idea.

Let's use 2 diferent situations (remember that we will have players liking both):
1 - [League of Legends] Strategic PvP:
From the champion picking to the end of the game, everything runs using strategy.
Even 1 kill can change the hole game, either being used as bait or being a loss of time advantage
Even 1 item bought in the wrong moment can make you lack of something you should have to kill your oponents
This game have and objective, but also have multiple sub-objectives depending on the strategy.
The problem here is that we will have long PvP battles

2 - [World of Warcraft] Speed PvP:
The only strategy here is the combination of poweres between partneers and the battle strategy itself (run there to... heal when... first kill this guy and then...)
Here we have a quick fun, but can get repetitive and boring really fast

We will have players that will want both fast and strategic PvPs, so we should provide them these styles, either doing a one style that combines both or going for multiple PvP gameplay styles.

There are also more to take into consideration, but I want to remember that the main problem I got from CoH PvP (I'm talking about MY OPINION) is that the main proposal was, defeat... defeat... defeat!
Since I'm not a real PvP player, that likes to win every and each opponent, I'd like some options provided so I can help out a team without getting to focus on enhancements and stuff to win win win win .... strategic objetives would get my attentions, since I'd like to bait for distraction, instead of only defeating, or sneak pass the enemy to acomplish something and bring some advantage for my team.

ErebusDragon

Steel Cobra
Steel Cobra's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 week ago
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 11:25
Zombie Man wrote:
Zombie Man wrote:

Now, speaking as a member of the dev team and privy to lots of conversations on this matter, remember what was said above by another Dev: we won't force people into PvP.
And so, if there is an 'open PvP zone' in TPP, it won't have any of the games or badges or missions that would attract non-PvPers. It can't, otherwise, it would violate our commitment to not forcing PvP on people.>

So nothing like Shivan Shard or missile collecting for those nifty PvE bonuses? That's a shame. It was always a blast to have those as back up if you just did NOT have the DPS to bring Reichsman down.

Trapstealer
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 10:26
I do not support PvP. My

I do not support PvP. My experience has been that those PvP players who invite you to a fight usually have a ramped up toon that you can not match. It does not serve any purpose in the game and just seems to stroke the egos of a few.

Wavilines
Wavilines's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 7 months ago
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 14:46
To be on topic, what would

To be on topic, what would cause me to be excited about PvP is having the choice to join in or not.

One of the things that makes me happy now about the progress of PvP is the option to turn the "flag" on or off. Some days, I don't mind dueling with others or competing in an arena. Some days, I just want to go do dailies and story missions. Give me the option to turn my participation on or off on a PvP server and I will GLADLY hop in. But to keep me interested for a long period of time, I will need content that help spurs me to challenge the opposition near or at the End Game. I've stopped caring about grinding out to get rare items because it stops becoming a game for me. It becomes a chore and I would rather mow the lawn than grind an Instance 70 times. At least I can see my immediate progress from mowing after working so hard.

Something that I think would help bad behavior, as discussed above, is that early zones should be locked off to the other faction. One of the most frustrating things I found when starting out in PvP is getting murdered right out of the gate and having someone camp over my body. While the griefer gets loads of enjoyment over it, it causes me to stop playing the game and tell my friends that they shouldn't play. As for battle grounds and PvP zones...that's something I've no experience in.

Edit: I should really proofread before I post :P

Sentry
Sentry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/03/2013 - 18:48
About 90% of the replies PvP

About 90% of the replies PvP threads get here, or on the Titan Forums, or on the MWM forums is complaining about how bad PvP was and how people will throw their computer out of their window if they're forced into open world PvP.

Could we get a thread to stick to the top that basically outlines people won't be forced into PvP and how PvP will be optional and if you don't like it you can avoid it completely? That would make sorting through PvP threads 100x easier for whichever developer chooses to actually read through all this.

These threads are for discussing how to make PvP better, how to attract players into PvP and how to balance PvP. If your response is that you have 0 interest in ever PvPing or contributing ideas, and your only concern is dodging PvP completely, realize that the developers have already addressed that issue and there is no reason to inflate the amount of posts in these threads.

Edit: If you're afraid this was aiming at you specifically, it probably wasn't. I really like ideas that can be used in PvP, even if you've never PvPed before.

Pages